DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
*** please note *** Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected variously over three patented claim sets -- US 10,895,568; US 9,915,644; and US 9,250,228 -- each in view of Keays (US 20130021153) as follows:
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,895,568 in view of Keays (US 20130021153).
Specifically, regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,895,568:
Regarding claim 1:
A system for remotely monitoring intoxication of a user, the system comprising: (preamble of patented claim 1)
* a sample acquisition device in communication with a mobile computing device associated with the user, wherein the first sample acquisition device comprises: (patented claim 1, 1st indent)
* transmission components configured to transmit a first sample signal based on the first sample to the mobile computing device; and (patented claim 1, final indent)
* a light emitting element configured to emit a pattern of light emission; and (patented claims 1 and 6 – emits light signature)
* a processing system in communication with the mobile computing device, wherein the processing system is configured to: (patented claim 1, 2nd indent)
* receive an authentication signal generated upon detection of the pattern of light emission, using a sensor of the mobile computing device, wherein the authentication signal associates the user with the first sample signal; and (patented claim 1 – authentication signal based on unique signature and claim 6 – unique signature is an emitted light signature)
* generate an intoxication metric based on the first sample signal and the authentication signal. (patented claim 1, 5th and 7th indents)
The patented claim set of US 10,895,568 does not contain the following limitations in combination:
* a cavity configured to receive a first sample from the user and direct the first sample to an alcohol sensor; and
* trigger a prompt to the user, wherein the first sample is received from the user in response to the prompt;
However, Keays teaches:
* a cavity configured to receive a first sample from the user and direct the first sample to an alcohol sensor (cavity of breath tube 72/76 directs the sample to the alcohol sensor 78; [0069-71]; see at least fig. 7); and
* trigger a prompt to the user, wherein the first sample is received from the user in response to the prompt (see at least [0105] including at least that the device may be commanded / controlled / triggered to “display a prompting screen, prompting the user to blow into the breath testing unit”; see also [0119]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of the breath tube / cavity and prompt / trigger of Keays. This is because the breath tube allows for the sample to be conveyed to the sensor and the prompt informs a user when to blow into the sensor at a desired time. This is important in order to breath test a user at a desired time.
Regarding claim 2: (see Keays at [0071] and [0089] – fuel cell sensor)
Regarding claim 3: (see Keays at [0071] and [0089] – semiconductor sensor)
Regarding claim 5: (see Keays at [0103-105] – pairing restricted to serial number)
Therefore, (regarding claims 2-3 and 5) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of the fuel cell sensor; semiconductor sensor; and/or pairing restriction of Keays. This is because the sensors allow for alcohol testing and the pair restriction prevents other devices from connecting. This is important in order to breath test a user for alcohol securely.
Claims 6, 8-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,915,644 in view of Keays (US 20130021153).
Specifically, regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,915,644:
Regarding claim 6:
A method comprising: (patented claim 6, preamble)
at the mobile computing device, receiving a breath sample signal derived from reception of the breath sample at the sample acquisition device in communication with the mobile computing device; (patented claim 6, 1st main indent)
at the mobile computing device, generating a first verification signal useful for validating the identity of the user providing the breath sample; (patented claim 6, 2nd main indent)
preventing pairing of a second sample acquisition device with the mobile computing device while the user is providing the breath sample; (patented claim 15)
authenticating the user based upon processing of the first verification signal; (patented claim 6, 2nd main indent)
at a processing system in communication with the mobile computing device, receiving the breath sample signal; (patented claim 6, 1st main indent)
generating a verification assessment that validates provision of the breath sample by the user, based upon the breath sample signal and the first verification signal; and (patented claim 6, 4th indent)
returning a value of an intoxication metric of the user, based upon the breath sample signal. (patented claim 6, final indent)
The patented claim set of US 9,915,644 does not contain the following limitations in combination:
at a mobile computing device of the user, prompting the user to provide a breath sample at a sample acquisition device associated with the user;
However, Keays teaches:
at a mobile computing device of the user (500; fig. 10; [0085]), prompting the user to provide a breath sample (see fig. 10 showing that commands from mobile computing device 300 flow to the sample acquisition device 500 and prompt a user; see at least [0105]) at a sample acquisition device associated with the user (500; fig. 10; [0096]);
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of the prompt of Keays. This is because the prompt informs a user when to blow into the sensor at a desired time. This is important in order to breath test a user at a desired time.
Regarding claim 8: (see Keays at [0103] – serial number verification)
Regarding claim 9: (see Keays at [0034]; [0101] – facial recognition)
Regarding claim 10: (see Keays at [0093]; [0048] – facial recognition in video)
Regarding claim 11: (see Keays at [0048]; [0093] – DNA and biometric)
Regarding claim 12: (see Keays at [0048] – DNA based verification)
Regarding claim 13: (see Keays at [0048] – plural types of verification requiring plural sensor types)
Regarding claim 14: (see Keays at [0071] and [0089] – fuel cell sensor in cavity)
Regarding claim 15: (see Keays at [0048] – DNA based verification – breath is the fluid sample)
Regarding claim 16: (see Keays at [0099])
Regarding claim 17: (see Keays at abstract and [0037] – BAC as metric)
Regarding claim 18: (patented claim 15)
Regarding claim 20: (see Keays at [0037] – notification at threshold)
Therefore, (regarding claims 8-17 and 20) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of the taught forms of verification; fuel cell sensor; guiding via application; BAC as a metric; pairing restriction and/or notification at a threshold of Keays. This is because these concepts are for a proper breath test to be made, verified, transmitted and acted upon. This is important in order to breath test a user for alcohol securely.
Claims 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,250,228 in view of Keays (US 20130021153).
Specifically, regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,250,228:
Regarding claim 6:
A method comprising: (patented claim 1, preamble)
at a mobile computing device of the user, prompting the user to provide a breath sample at a sample acquisition device associated with the user; (patented claim 1, 1st main indent)
at the mobile computing device, receiving a breath sample signal derived from reception of the breath sample at the sample acquisition device in communication with the mobile computing device; (patented claim 1, 2nd main indent – transmitted to mobile device)
at the mobile computing device, generating a first verification signal useful for validating the identity of the user providing the breath sample; (patented claim 1, 3rd main indent)
preventing pairing of a second sample acquisition device with the mobile computing device while the user is providing the breath sample; (patented claims 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 – blocking pairing in claim 8)
authenticating the user based upon processing of the first verification signal; (patented claims 1, 5 and 6)
at a processing system in communication with the mobile computing device, receiving the breath sample signal; (patented claim 1, 4th main indent)
generating a verification assessment that validates provision of the breath sample by the user, based upon the breath sample signal and the first verification signal; and (patented claim 1, 5th main indent)
a value of an intoxication metric of the user, based upon the breath sample signal. (patented claim 1, 6th and 7th main indent)
The patented claim set of US 9,250,228 does not contain the following limitations in combination:
returning the intoxication value
However, Keays teaches:
returning a value of an intoxication metric of the user, based upon the breath sample signal ([0107]; see also fig. 10 showing the intoxication metric / report flows to the monitoring station).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of returning the intoxication metric / report of Keays. This is because intoxication metric is useful for outside users such as a monitoring station or supervisory authority to track and returning the value allows this tracking. This is important in order to breath test a user and provide that information to relevant parties such as an on-call supervisory professional (see Keays fig. 1, element 16).
Regarding claim 7: (patented claim 5)
Regarding claim 8: (see Keays at [0103] – serial number verification)
Regarding claim 9: (see Keays at [0034]; [0101] – facial recognition)
Regarding claim 10: (see Keays at [0093]; [0048] – facial recognition in video)
Regarding claim 11: (see Keays at [0048]; [0093] – DNA and biometric)
Regarding claim 12: (see Keays at [0048] – DNA based verification)
Regarding claim 13: (see Keays at [0048] – plural types of verification requiring plural sensor types)
Regarding claim 14: (see Keays at [0071] and [0089] – fuel cell sensor in cavity)
Regarding claim 15: (see Keays at [0048] – DNA based verification – breath is the fluid sample)
Regarding claim 16: (patented claim 1 – prompting via application)
Regarding claim 17: (see Keays at abstract and [0037] – BAC as metric)
Regarding claim 18: (patented claims 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 – blocking pairing in claim 8)
Regarding claim 19: (patented claim 1 – time interval in verification)
Regarding claim 20: (see Keays at [0037] – notification at threshold)
Therefore, (regarding claims 8-15, 17 and 20) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claim set with the specific knowledge of the taught forms of verification; fuel cell sensor; guiding via application; BAC as a metric; pairing restriction and/or notification at a threshold of Keays. This is because these concepts ensure a proper breath test to be made, verified, transmitted and acted upon. This is important in order to breath test a user for alcohol securely.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 8-11, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Keays (US 20130021153).
Regarding claim 6, Keays teaches a method (abstract) comprising:
at a mobile computing device of the user (500; fig. 10; [0085]), prompting the user to provide a breath sample (see fig. 10 showing that commands from mobile computing device 300 flow to the sample acquisition device 500 and prompt a user; see at least [0105]) at a sample acquisition device associated with the user (500; fig. 10; [0096]);
at the mobile computing device, receiving a breath sample signal derived from reception of the breath sample at the sample acquisition device in communication with the mobile computing device (400; see fig. 10 “breath test signal”; see fig. 10 also showing the flow of data / communication from the breath tester to the mobile device);
at the mobile computing device, generating a first verification signal useful for validating the identity of the user providing the breath sample (see [0101] teaching that “If the identity verification data does not match the master ID, the modified breath test signal may comprise a ‘failed’ state” and that the verification signal may be produced at the mobile / intermediary device);
preventing pairing of a second sample acquisition device with the mobile computing device while the user is providing the breath sample ([0103] teaches that the “the intermediary device may be paired to the breath testing unit 300” via “a PAN authentication key, for example the serial number of an associated breath testing unit” which will necessarily exclude / prevent any other sample acquisition device being paired as [0104] teaches that devices not meeting the authentication threshold(s) -i.e. different serial number- are forced from the link / connection; see also [0105] teaching these security / pairing measures are prior to the breath sample);
authenticating the user based upon processing of the first verification signal (see [0101] teaching that the intermediary / mobile / cellular device may store a master ID and compare a photo taken at the breath sampling to the master ID in order to authenticate the provenance of the sample; see also [0103-105]);
at a processing system in communication with the mobile computing device (600; see fig. 10), receiving the breath sample signal (see fig. 10 showing this flow of data from elements 500 to 600, at least report regarding “BrAC” – i.e. Breath Alcohol Content);
generating a verification assessment that validates provision of the breath sample by the user, based upon the breath sample signal and the first verification signal (see at least [0100] “The modified breath test signal may also comprise identity verification data and/or a time/date stamp data”; see also fig. 10 and [0101]); and
returning a value of an intoxication metric of the user, based upon the breath sample signal ([0107]; see also fig. 10 showing the intoxication metric / report flows to the monitoring station).
Regarding claim 8, Keays teaches that generating the verification assessment is further based upon verification of a serial number of the sample acquisition device associated with the breath sample provided by the user (see at least [0103] “a PAN authentication key, for example the serial number of an associated breath testing unit or interlock device, be entered into the intermediary device so as to associate the intermediary device with the breath testing unit”).
Regarding claim 9, Keays teaches that generating the verification assessment is further based upon recognition of a facial feature of the user, captured in an image of the user taken using a camera of the mobile computing device, as the user provides the breath sample ([0034]; [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Keays teaches that generating the verification assessment is further based upon recognition of a facial feature of the user, captured in video data of the user generated using a camera of the mobile computing device, as the user provides the breath sample ([0093]; [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Keays teaches that generating the verification assessment is further based upon detection of a biological signature the user ([0048] teaches using at least DNA recognition; see also [0093] regarding using biometrics).
Regarding claim 16, Keays teaches guiding, using an application executing at the mobile computing device, breath sample provision by the user ([0099]).
Regarding claim 17, Keays teaches that the value of the intoxication metric comprises a blood alcohol content (BAC) value (abstract; see also [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Keays teaches transmitting a notification to a remote entity in response to the intoxication metric exceeding a threshold value ([0037] teaches this notification; see especially that the device will “inform the supervisory monitor 16 … if the content signal 11 indicates that the substance content levels exceed a predetermined threshold”).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keays (US 20130021153) in view of Dunn (US 20110166700).
Regarding claim 1, Keays teaches a system for remotely monitoring intoxication of a
PNG
media_image1.png
7
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
user (abstract), the system comprising:
* a sample acquisition device (300) in communication with a mobile computing device (500) associated with the user ([0096]), wherein the first sample acquisition device comprises:
* a cavity configured to receive a first sample from the user and direct the first sample to an alcohol sensor (cavity of breath tube 72/76 directs the sample to the alcohol sensor 78; [0069-71]; see at least fig. 7);
* transmission components configured to transmit a first sample signal based on the first sample to the mobile computing device (personal area network (PAN) module 380 transmits the breath test signal 400 to the mobile device 500; see fig. 10); and
* a light emitting element configured to emit a pattern of light emission ([0105] teaching that a display / screen may be used to emit a pattern of light; see [0119] teaching that the breath testing unit has “a graphical user interface 330 (GUI)”); and
* a processing system in communication with the mobile computing device (at least control module (CPU) / digital processor 360; see fig. 10 and [0115] / [0085-86]), wherein the processing system is configured to:
* trigger a prompt to the user, wherein the first sample is received from the user in response to the prompt (see at least [0105] including at least that the device may be commanded / controlled / triggered to “display a prompting screen, prompting the user to blow into the breath testing unit”; see also [0119]);
* receive an authentication signal, wherein the authentication signal associates the user with the first sample signal (at least a photo / biometric data; [0100]; see at least fig. 10 showing the flow of this authentication data); and
* generate an intoxication metric based on the first sample signal and the authentication signal (encrypted report includes alcohol content; photo / image, date and time; see fig. 10; see at least [0100] and abstract).
Keays does not directly and specifically state that the authentication is generated upon detection of the pattern of light emission, using a sensor of the mobile computing device.
However, Dunn teaches a device with “a breath sensor 46 for determining a breath alcohol level” ([0063]) having plural ways of verification ([0052-54]) and a set of LEDs (319; see fig. 24A) where “The pattern and number of LEDs 319 and the pattern of lighting of such LEDs 319 to communicate specific information is not dependent on any specific criteria and can be determined by the designer or programmer of the controller 310.” ([0126]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alcohol testing device with several way of verification of Keays with the specific knowledge of using the alcohol testing device with several way of verification and a set of LEDs to communicate as design indicated of Dunn. This is because such communication via a set of LEDs allows for providing an on-device communication for a programmer / designer to use as needed to output desired signals (see [0126] of Dunn). This is important in order to provide flexibility in communication to and from the alcohol / breath sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Keays teaches that the alcohol sensor comprises a fuel cell sensor (see at least [0071]; [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Keays teaches that the alcohol sensor comprises a semiconductor sensor (see at least [0071]; [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Keays does not directly and specifically state that the light emitting element comprises a set of light emitting diodes.
However, Dunn teaches a device with “a breath sensor 46 for determining a breath alcohol level” ([0063]) having plural ways of verification ([0052-54]) and a set of LEDs (319; see fig. 24A) where “The pattern and number of LEDs 319 and the pattern of lighting of such LEDs 319 to communicate specific information is not dependent on any specific criteria and can be determined by the designer or programmer of the controller 310.” ([0126]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alcohol testing device with several way of verification of Keays with the specific knowledge of using the alcohol testing device with several way of verification and a set of LEDs to communicate as design indicated of Dunn. This is because such communication via a set of LEDs allows for providing an on-device communication for a programmer / designer to use as needed to output desired signals (see [0126] of Dunn). This is important in order to provide flexibility in communication to and from the alcohol / breath sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Keays teaches that the mobile computing device is configured to prevent pairing of a second sample acquisition device with the mobile computing device ([0103] teaches that the “the intermediary device may be paired to the breath testing unit 300” via “a PAN authentication key, for example the serial number of an associated breath testing unit” which will necessarily exclude / prevent any other sample acquisition device being paired as [0104] teaches that devices not meeting the authentication threshold(s) -i.e. different serial number- are forced from the link / connection; see also [0105] teaching these security / pairing measures are prior to the breath sample).
Regarding claim 7, Keays teaches prompting the sample acquisition device to broadcast a unique signature ([0103-105] at least a PAN authentication key such as the serial number).
Keays does not directly and specifically state that the unique signature comprising a pattern of emitted light, wherein generating the verification signal comprises detecting the pattern of emitted light from the sample acquisition device.
However, Dunn teaches a device with “a breath sensor 46 for determining a breath alcohol level” ([0063]) having plural ways of verification ([0052-54]) and a set of LEDs (319; see fig. 24A) where “The pattern and number of LEDs 319 and the pattern of lighting of such LEDs 319 to communicate specific information is not dependent on any specific criteria and can be determined by the designer or programmer of the controller 310.” ([0126]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alcohol testing device with several way of verification of Keays with the specific knowledge of using the alcohol testing device with several way of verification and a set of LEDs to communicate as design indicated of Dunn. This is because such communication via a pattern of a set of LEDs allows for providing an on-device communication for a programmer / designer to use as needed to output desired signals (see [0126] of Dunn). This is important in order to provide flexibility in communication to and from the alcohol / breath sensor.
Claims 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keays (US 20130021153).
Regarding claim 12, Keays lacks direct and specific teaching that the biological signature is detectable in the breath sample of the user.
However, Keays does disclose “positive identification of the user … may be accomplished by one or more recognition techniques including: facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA recognition, iris recognition, fingerprint recognition, or other recognition techniques now known or developed hereafter” ([0048]; emphasis added).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the breath acquisition device with DNA recognition of Keays with a DNA or other biological signature which is detectable in the breath sample. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a breath sample with DNA therein would be a straightforward way of obtaining the DNA sample while also testing the breath for alcohol level because providing positive ID of the user providing the breath sample is the stated and desired outcome / design goal.
Regarding claim 13, Keays teaches that generating the first verification signal comprises generating the first verification signal from a first sensor and a second sensor of the sample acquisition device ([0048] teaches that the ID verification may be by “one or more recognition techniques including: facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA recognition, iris recognition, fingerprint recognition, or other recognition techniques now known or developed hereafter.” Emphasis added; i.e. camera / facial recognition and DNA / biomarker recognition combined to provide a two metric “positive identification”; see also [0049] and [0051] teaching regarding additional sensors known to be useful in ID verification / authentication).
Regarding claim 14, Keays teaches that the first sensor of the sample device comprises a fuel cell sensor positioned within a cavity of the sample acquisition device ([0074]; see fig. 6 showing this configuration; see also [0089]).
Regarding claim 15, Keays lacks direct and specific teaching that generating the verification assessment is further based upon processing of a fluid sample from the user.
However, Keays does disclose “positive identification of the user … may be accomplished by one or more recognition techniques including: facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA recognition, iris recognition, fingerprint recognition, or other recognition techniques now known or developed hereafter” ([0048]; emphasis added).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the breath (fluid sample) acquisition device with DNA recognition of Keays with a DNA or other biological signature which is detectable in the breath sample. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a breath sample with DNA therein would be a straightforward way of obtaining the DNA sample while also testing the breath for alcohol level because providing positive ID of the user providing the breath sample is the stated and desired outcome / design goal.
Regarding claim 18, Keays lacks direct and specific teaching that preventing pairing of the second sample acquisition device comprises preventing wireless pairing of the second sample acquisition device with the mobile computing device.
However, Keays does disclose preventing pairing from any device without the proper serial number ([0103] teaches that the “the intermediary device may be paired to the breath testing unit 300” via “a PAN authentication key, for example the serial number of an associated breath testing unit” which will necessarily exclude / prevent any other sample acquisition device being paired as [0104] teaches that devices not meeting the authentication threshold(s) -i.e. different serial number- are forced from the link / connection; see also [0105] teaching these security / pairing measures are prior to the breath sample) which will include wired and wireless pairing of a second sample acquisition device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the exclusive pairing by serial number of Keays with specifically excluding wireless pairing. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected preventing wireless pairing to be a consequence of preventing pairing to all devices except for one with a specific serial number because the design goal is to restrict pairing to the designated device.
Regarding claim 19, Keays lacks direct and specific teaching that generating the verification assessment is further based upon verifying a time stamp of provision of the breath sample at the sample acquisition device.
However, Keays does disclose verification (see at least ([0052-54]) and time stamp for the breath sample (see fig. 10 showing that the test results, photo and time are part of the report; see also [0048] “maintain a history of the test time, result and the user identification data for each test”) as well as configuration to “inform the supervisory monitor 16 if the content signal 11 is not received from the transceiver at a predetermined time” ([0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alcohol testing device with several way of verification as well as time of test and comparison to a predetermined time of Keays with specifically using the time data / stamp in the verification process. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected time data to be useful in providing verification that the sample has been correctly given as prompted because the design goal is to determine / verify if the test has been completed by the indicated individual as instructed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855