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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 12/14/2022 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Status/Claim Objection
In the claim set received on 12/14/2023, claims 1-16 are pending. However, there are two claim 8s.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered original second claim 8 has been renumbered claim 9, original claim 9 has been renumbered as claim 10, original claim 10 has been renumbered claim 11, and so on. Note: Claims 1-8 are as presented, and this renumbering of claims will also change claim dependency, as follows:
(Currently Amended) [[8]]-9. The analyzer of claim 8, wherein the electronic device is at least one of a second hand-biometric analyzer, a local computing device, and a remote computing device.
(Currently Amended) [[9]]-10 An automated hand-biometric analyzer comprising: a memory; a communication interface; and a controller coupled to the memory and the communication interface, wherein the controller is configured to: collect a first set of biometric data from a user using one or more load cell sensors communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to measure a hand grip strength of the user; collect a second set of biometric data from the user from one or more cardiovascular sensors coupled to the controller and configured to measure cardiovascular parameters of the user; analyzing the first and second sets of biometric data; and providing feedback on the first and second sets of biometric data collected.
(Currently Amended) [[10]]-11. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the controller is configured to store the first and second sets of biometric data on the analyzer.
(Currently Amended) [[11]]-12. The analyzer of claim [[10]]11, wherein the controller is configured to store the first and second sets of biometric data on a local computing device.
(Currently Amended) [[12]]-13. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the controller is configured to store the first and second sets of biometric data on a remote computing device.
(Currently Amended) [[13]]-14. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the controller is configured to store the first and second sets of biometric data on a second hand-biometric analyzer.
(Currently Amended) [[14]]-15. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the feedback is provided in real-time to one or more users.
(Currently Amended) [[15]]-16. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the first and second sets of biometric data are used to generate metadata, and where the metadata is reported through statistical analysis.
(Currently Amended) [[16]]-17. The analyzer of claim [[9]]10, wherein the first and second sets of biometric data are used to generate or train machine-learning models or use machine-learning for reporting or analysis.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “the controller communicates wirelessly”, this should be amended to “the controller is configured to communicate . Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 16 and 17 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the one or more connection points are configured to contact the fingers or the palm of the user for measuring conductivity or impedance between one or more second analyzer sensors located on a second hand- biometric analyzer communicatively coupled to the automatic hand-biometric analyzer;” the emphasized limitation is indefinite, because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “second hand-biometric analyzer”, it is unclear how it is “communicatively coupled”, and it is also unclear as to how “conductivity or impedance” measured from the device of the base claim (i.e. “the automatic hand-biometric analyzer”) can be interpreted in relation with another analyzer (i.e. “second hand- biometric analyzer”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, both claims recite “wherein the first and second sets of biometric data are used to…”; these claims are rejected as indefinite because under MPEP 2173.05(q) use claim, as these claims recite using the data to achieve a result (i.e. “generate metadata”, or “generate or train machine-learning models”), but does not disclose actual steps on how to achieve these recited results. Furthermore, these limitations are further indefinite as it is not tied to any recited structure that is capable of using these data sets to achieve the recited result(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, these claims individually recite limitations pertaining to “the electronic device”, this is a device that is distinct and not an integral part of the “automated hand-biometric analyzer” recited in the base claim. As such, a claim that recite limitations pertaining only to the “electronic device” fails to further limit the “analyzer” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-14, these claims individually recite limitations of storing data on a device that is distinct and not an integral part of the “automated hand-biometric analyzer” recited in the base claim. As such, a claim that recite limitations pertaining only to such device fails to further limit the “analyzer” recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The Examiner suggests amending these claims to recite a communications structure configured for transmitting data sets to remote device(s).
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 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step (1): Independent claim 10 is directed to a system or a method, and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
To Step 2(a) prong 1:
Independent claim 10 recites “analyzing the first and second sets of biometric data; and providing feedback on the first and second sets of biometric data collected.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be wholly performed by a person via a series of mental steps, including mentally observing, analyzing and/or making judgement on a first and second set of biometric data, and then providing feedback. this claim limitation does not positively recite the robotic instrument. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas under the mental processes bucket.
Dependent claims 15-17 recite limitations directed to storing data on devices, providing feedback in real time, and using the biometric data for further processes. In here, all of these dependent claims recite additional steps which can be performed in a person’s mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, including providing feedback in real time via mental evaluation, calculating metadata by doing statistical analysis via mathematical relationships, and then mentally determine how to train machine learning models.
Under Step 2(a) prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements: “a memory”; “a communication interface”; and “a controller coupled to the memory and the communication interface”; these elements do not practically integrate the recited judicial exception in claim 10, because the elements (i.e. memory, communication interface, and controller) are generic computer-based components that merely tie the field of use of the current claim to a generic computer-based environment. Similarly, the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to” is analogous to ‘apply it’ for implementing an abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not practically integrate the judicial exception because these elements do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping; this pertains to claim 17.
Claims 11-14 recite storing data in various computer-based devices also fail to practically integrate for the same rationale for using a computer device as a tool to perform an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 additionally recite: “collect a first set of biometric data from a user using one or more load cell sensors communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to measure a hand grip strength of the user; collect a second set of biometric data from the user from one or more cardiovascular sensors coupled to the controller and configured to measure cardiovascular parameters of the user.” These steps also fail to practically integrate the judicial exception recited in claim 9 because using sensor(s) to collect data falls within insignificant data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2b: The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of “load cell sensors”, “cardiovascular sensors”, “memory”; “communication interface”; and “controller” in the field of remote/telemetric health monitoring are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry as indicated in the following references:
Le Chevalier et al. (US 2017/0291066 A1) See [0023-0024] and Figs.1 and 3 which illustrates a grip device 101 connected to a computer environment including memory/cloud, computer/server, communication interface/network and various software applications. Also see [0052, 0080, 0088, 0152] and Figs. 4-5 which illustrates a hand grip device having pressure sensors and cardiovascular sensors for measuring a user’s grip force and pulse, ECG etc.
Hall et al. (US 2018/0084959 A1) Figs. 1-4 and Fig. 8 which illustrates a device comprising two grips structures adapted to be grasped by a user’s left and right hand, the grips having embedded therein force pressure sensors (e.g. strain gages) and cardiovascular sensors (e.g. PPG) for detecting the user’s grip strength and cardiovascular parameters; see [0020-0021]. Also see Fig. 10 and [0056] which discloses a remote computing environment in which the detected sensor data is transmitted to be stored and analyze by remote device(s).
Accordingly, claims 10-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 10-17 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 reciting patent-ineligible subject matter: abstract idea(s).
Note to applicant: Claims 1-9 are found patent-eligible, because the particular structure recited in claim 1 (i.e. elements “gripping surface”, “cardiovascular sensor”, “connection points” along with their specific structural relationship/placement on the “housing” for acquiring sensor data was found to satisfy the Step 2a Prong 2-practical integration.)
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.
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 1, 4-5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Chevalier et al. US 2017/0291066 A1 (hereinafter “Le”, applicant’s IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Le teaches an automated hand-biometric analyzer (grip interface 101) comprising:
a memory (Figs. 7-8: memory 807);
a communication interface (Figs. 7-8: I/O bus 703, and communications network 805);
a controller (Figs. 7-8: microcontroller 808) coupled to the memory and the communication interface (see Figs. 7-8 and [0150]);
one or more load cell sensors (gauge pressure sensor 709) communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to measure a hand grip strength of a user ([0162] measuring pressure applied from a user; also see [0189] grip strength measurement);
a housing (rod shape housing, this is shown in Figs. 4 and 5, comprising top area 404, middle area 402 and bottom area 405, and housing therein an internal rod 403) that holds the memory, the communication interface, the controller, and the one or more load cell sensors (see Figs. 7-8), wherein the housing is a configured to be received within a hand of a user (as shown in Fig.5, the rod shape housing is adapted to be grasped by a user’s hand, also see [0081-0088] regarding hand/finger placement);
a gripping surface (Fig.4: 402) extending along a least a first portion of an outer surface of the housing (see annotated Fig. 5: area corresponding to S1-S5 or sensor surface areas 501-505), the gripping surface having one or more connection points (501-505) where the one or more connection points are communicatively coupled to the one or more load cells ([0085-0086] 501-505 are spaced to be contacted by fingers of a user, and comprises gauge or pressure sensors S1-S5 for detecting grip strength; also see [0162]); and
one or more cardiovascular sensors located on a second portion of the outer surface of the housing (see annotated Fig. 5: area corresponding to S6 and S7(not shown) or sensor surface areas 506-507) and configured to receive a palm of the hand of the user and measure cardiovascular parameters of the user ([0087-0088] 506-507 are adapted to be contacted by a palm of the user, and embedded with sensors S6 and S7 to detect cardiovascular parameters, e.g. heart rate, pulse oximetry, temperature and pressure resistance ).
Regarding claim 4, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1, wherein the one or more connection points (501-505) are configured to contact one or more fingers (see [0081-0088] regarding finger placement) of the hand of the user for measuring conductivity or impedance between the one or more load cell sensors or the one or more cardiovascular sensors. ([0172] galvanic skin response/GSR skin impedance and conductivity measurements)
Regarding claim 5, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1, wherein the one or more connection points (501-507) are configured to contact the fingers or the palm of the user (see [0081-0088] regarding finger and palm placement) for measuring conductivity or impedance between one or more second analyzer sensors located on a second hand- biometric analyzer communicatively coupled to the automatic hand-biometric analyzer. (This claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) indefiniteness. This claim is rejected under the Examiners best guess that total or cumulative conductivity or impedances is measured when all fingers from both hands have contacted respective connection points; this is taught in Le: [0172] GSR skin impedance and conductivity measurements, and [0187] which discusses taking sensor readings from left and right hands for cumulative measurements, e.g. GSR sensor. Also see Fig. 2 and [0028-0030] which illustrates grip devices 101 and 201 being used simultaneously for dual -mode monitoring.)
Regarding claim 8, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1, wherein the controller (808) communicates wirelessly with an electronic device. ([0023-0024] wireless communication with external devices, e.g. paired mobile application 105 or platform 106; either 105 or106 are taken to encompass “an electronic device” in this claim; see Fig.8)
Regarding claim 9, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 8, wherein the electronic device is at least one of a second hand-biometric analyzer, a local computing device, and a remote computing device. ([0023-0024] wireless communication with external devices, e.g. paired mobile application 105 or platform 106, either 105 or106 is sufficient to encompass “local computing device” or “remote computing device” in this claim)
Regarding claim 10, Le discloses an automated hand-biometric analyzer (grip interface 101) comprising:
a memory (Figs. 7-8: memory 807);
a communication interface (Figs. 7-8: I/O bus 703, and communication network 805); and
a controller (Figs. 7-8: microcontroller 808) coupled to the memory and the communication interface (see Figs. 7-8 and [0150]), wherein the controller is configured to:
collect a first set of biometric data (grip strength data) from a user using one or more load cell sensors (gauge pressure sensor 709) communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to measure a hand grip strength of the user ([0162] measuring pressure applied from a user; also see [0189] grip strength measurement);
collect a second set of biometric data (cardiovascular parameters, e.g. heart rate, pulse oximetry, temperature and pressure resistance) from the user from one or more cardiovascular sensors (sensors 819-823) coupled to the controller and configured to measure cardiovascular parameters of the user ([0087-0088] 506-507 are adapted to be contacted by a palm of the user, and embedded with sensors S6 and S7 to detect cardiovascular parameters, e.g. heart rate, pulse oximetry, temperature and pressure resistance);
analyzing the first and second sets of biometric data ([0032-0036] acquired data are analyzed in real time by the controller 808 and data processing 804, or transmitted to a remote device for further processing); and
providing feedback on the first and second sets of biometric data collected ([0019-0024] the grip device 101 is in combination with paired mobile application 105, which is adapted to process data and provide feedback, individual coaching and competitive events to the user, also see [0032-0033]. Alternatively, [0143, 0155, 0165-0166] the embedded electronics 701 processes the acquired sensor data, and the LEDs 705, audio 803 and force feedback 706 provide visual, audio and haptic feedback to the user).
Regarding claim 11, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to store the first and second sets of biometric data on the analyzer. (Fig 8: memory 801 stores the detected sets of data on the analyzer; see [0150])
Regarding claim 12 to 14, Le discloses a communications network 805 for transmitting data to a remote device for storage ([0150] and Figs. 2 and 8); this is taken to encompass: “a local computing device”, “a remote computing device”, and “a second hand-biometric analyzer” recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 15, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 10, wherein the feedback is provided in real-time to one or more users. ([0155: last sentence] and [0165] real time sensor data analytics and feedback; [0200] real time sensor data visualization, which is a form of feedback)
Regarding claim 16, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 10, wherein the first and second sets of biometric data are used to generate metadata, and where the metadata is reported through statistical analysis. ([0032-0033] paired mobile application 105 and contextual analytic platform 106 enables a competitive and interactive feature amongst different users so that individual user’s performance statistics are showed and compared. Alternatively, [0033, 0200-0201] individual and multiple users’ data are aggregated and compared with various statistical thresholds. This is taken to encompass “metadata is reported through statistical analysis” in this claim)
Regarding claim 17, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 10, wherein the first and second sets of biometric data are used to generate or train machine-learning models or use machine-learning for reporting or analysis. ([0025, 0200] using artificial intelligence algorithms to process data)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of DeBeliso et al. US 2009/0025475 A1 (hereinafter “DeBeliso”)
Regarding claim 2, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1 comprising a plurality of surface sensors 818-824 coupled to internal electronics 701 including data processing 804 (Fig.8 and [0150]), Le further discloses signal to noise and filtering techniques ([0171, 0200]); but does not explicitly disclose one or more load cell amplifiers communicatively coupled to the one or more load sensors for increasing a strength of signals coming from the one or more load sensors.
DeBeliso, another prior art reference in the analogous art of grip force measurement devices, discloses an assessment system 50 comprising a grip force transducer/sensor 10, and coupled to said transducer is a signal conditioning module 25 including ADC 26 and signal amplifier 27; as shown in Fig. 1 and [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Le’s data processing electronics to further include a signal conditioning module and amplified in view DeBeliso; the motivation is to produce high quality sensor signals and reduce data noise. (DeBeliso: [0051])
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Li LU101802 (hereinafter “Li”, PDF attached).
PNG
media_image2.png
695
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1, comprising a gripping surface as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, adapted to receive each of a user’s five fingers and palm individually in corresponding areas along its gripping surface for measuring grip strength, see Figs. 4-5: 501-507, and [0081-0088]. Le does not explicitly disclose wherein the gripping surface is comprised of two or more separate individual gripping surfaces, where each of the individual gripping surfaces is configured to receive a separate finger from the hand of the user to measure a finger grip strength individually or a combination of fingers.
Li, another prior art reference in the analogous art of handgrip strength measurement devices disclose a multi-finger grasping function test analyzer, exemplary as shown in Fig. 1 above. As illustrated, a generally cylindrical base 11 has thereon various distinct gripping surfaces: arc contact pieces 10 (for thumb), 9 (for index), 4 (for middle), 15 (for ring) and 16 (for pinky), corresponding to respective force/torque sensors 4-8, for measuring a user grip strength (see pg.10, ll.10- pg.11, ll.3; also see Figs. 2-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Le’s rod shape housing having a single gripping surface (Figs. 4-5), to include the plurality of gripping surfaces in view of Li’s (Fig.1-2). The motivation for doing so is to make the device more ergonomic to hold, and various gripping surface provides the added advantage of visual markings for proper finger placement during measurement. (See Li: pg.13, ll.13-17)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parvaneh et al. US 2018/0126219 A1 (hereinafter “Pravaneh”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Le discloses the analyzer of claim 1, further comprising wireless communication network 805 for communicatively coupling the controller to a remote network and device(s); see Fig. 8 and [0150, 0154]. Le also discloses a potential wired connection as illustrated in Fig. 8: 704 for connecting the device to a charging station 825. Le does not disclose a communication port communicatively coupled to the controller for communicating through a wired connection to an electronic device. However, wired and wireless connections are obvious variants in communications, as such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Le to include a communications port for wired connection to a remote device, this would have been an obvious design choice as wired and wireless connections are obvious variants.
Alternatively, Parvaneh, another prior art reference in the analogous field of handgrip measurement systems discloses a computing device 102 for assessing grip strength (as shown in Fig. 1), and in communication with a remote computing device and network as shown in Fig. 2. Parvaneh discloses using wired and wireless connections suitable for transmitting data ([0044: first 3 sentences]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Le’s device to include both wired and wireless communication in view of Parvaneh, this would provide a backup means of communication, as both are obvious variants.
Regarding claim 7, Le modified discloses the analyzer of claim 6, wherein the electronic device is at least one of a second hand-biometric analyzer, a local computing device, and a remote computing device. (Le [0023-0024] communication with external devices, e.g. paired mobile application 105 or platform 106; either 105 or106 are taken to encompass “local computing device” or “remote computing device” in this claim; see Fig.8. Also see Parvaneh: Fig. 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 101592491 B1 discloses a steering wheel comprising gripping surfaces with embedded grip strength sensors and heart rate sensors; see Fig.1: 10a and 10b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
November 14, 2025