DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 9 and 15 – 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. With regard to claim 9, the claim depends from claim 6, which is directed towards an arrangement including an accelerometer, rather than claim 8, which provides for a spectroscopic sensor, which would generally be understood to be required for providing data for the processing details set forth in claim 9. With regard to claim 15, although the claim is drawn to a computer-implemented method, one would generally not consider the details set forth in the claim to be able to be performed by a computer and thus the metes and bounds of the claimed method are unclear. The details of claims 16 – 19 are similarly unclear for the same reasoning.
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 11 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) computer-implemented steps (which are within a statutory category of invention) to “compare” received data, which falls in the category of a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regard to Revised step 2A, an exception is present as noted, and with regard to Revised step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, based on the high level of generality/nominal nature of accessing first and second signals (Examiner notes that the method is performed by a computer accessing signals, but the sensor structures do not provide positively claimed details) and providing an indication, one must conclude that these recitations do not impose a meaningful limitation onto the claim scope, as the limitations do not constitute use of the exception in the context of “a particular machine”. Instead, their high level of generality merely points to a generalized pre-processing data gathering and a post-processing data outputting being undertaken. Likewise, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the high level and broad renditions regarding the sensors and generic providing of an indication indicate that no specific sensors or outputting devices are required. Further, the dependent claims generally relate to further aspects of the judicial exceptions, and thus also fail to provide details to integrate the exceptions into a practical application.
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(s) 1 – 5, 11, and 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroulis (USPGPub 2020/0326293) in view of Sawasaka et al. (USPN 11,692,957). Examiner notes that the claims broadly indicate measurement of "a biomarker in a flatus". This limitation is understood when interpreted in light of the specification to encompass data from any of an H2S (hydrogen sulfide), H2 (hydrogen), CH4 (methane), CO2 (carbon dioxide), NO (nitric oxide), NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), etc. sensor (paragraph [0058] of the originally filed specification).
Peroulis teach a miniature/wireless gas sensor configured to measure any of the indicated substances that are within the scope of “a biomarker in a flatus” (paragraph [0039]). In particular, the arrangement (Figure 1; paragraphs [0039] – [0041]) includes a target gas/measurement (192) and reference sensor (194) along with humidity (152), temperature (154), and thermistor (180) sensors, where data therefrom is collected and analyzed to assess the gas concentration while accounting for the influence of humidity and temperature (Figure 3 and the description thereof, with particular attention to paragraphs [0048] – [0052]). Peroulis indicates that the reference sensor is similar to the measurement sensor, except that it is not responsive to the target substance of interest (paragraph [0039]). While Peroulis indicates that they provide a similar sensor they do not particularly teach that a filter is relied upon to create the reference sensor that does not respond to target gas of interest. As such, Peroulis teaches all of the features of the claimed invention except for this aspect.
Sawasaka et al. teach an alternate gas sensing arrangement (Figure 5; column 2 discussing “Features for Solving the Problems”; column 6, line 57 – column 7, line 18; column 9, lines 44 - 67) in which both a measurement and a reference sensor provide data for processing. As in Peroulis, the reference sensor of Sawasaka et al. is insensitive to the component of interest. As highlighted, Sawasaka et al. teach that in their reference sensor a filter adsorbs the gas so that it is not detected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peroulis by substituting a reference sensor that relies upon a filter to remove the target gas for the disclosed reference sensor, since it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to substitute alternate equivalent expedients.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroulis in view of Sawasaka et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above. The combination is drawn to a miniaturized, wireless gas sensing arrangement as discussed above. As such, the combination teaches all of the features of the claimed invention except for inclusion of an accelerometer as part of the sensor. However, it was known to include an accelerometer in a measurement arrangement, such as a miniaturized wireless sensor, to detect motion of the sensor during use. Further, there is nothing in the claims to indicate that the function of the gas concentration sensor relies upon data from the accelerometer or vice versa. That is, each category of sensor operates independently. As such, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been within the skill level of the art to have modified the combination of Peroulis and Sawasaka et al. to include an accelerometer of known type, since it has generally been held to be obvious to combine prior art elements having known function/known methods, wherein the elements perform in their known manner when utilized together, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroulis in view of Sawasaka et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Van Kesteren et al. (USPN 9,636,058). The combination teaches a gas sensor method and system, including all of the features of claims 1 and 11, but does not particularly indicate that an additional color-based sensor is included in the invention. However, Van Kesteren et al. teaches a known optical/color-based gas sensor (Figures 1 and 8, and descriptions thereof). Further, there is nothing the in claims to indicate that the function of the concentration sensor relies upon data from the color-based sensor or vice versa; that is, each category of sensor operates independently. As such, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been within the skill level of the art to have modified Peroulis in view of Sawasaka et al. to include a color-based sensor of known type, since it has generally been held to be obvious combine prior art elements having known function/known methods, wherein the elements perform in their known manner when utilized together, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroulis in view of Sawasaka et al. as applied to claims 1 above, further in view of Kim (USPN 10,376,200). The combination discloses a gas sensor configured to provide data regarding the concentration of constituents of interest in the measured gas, but does not particularly indicate that the concentration information may be analyzed for physiological information. However, Kim (USPN 10,376,200) teaches that gas sensor data is relevant to physiological/flatulence monitoring (Figure 1) and that analyzing patterns/frequency provides insight to a patient’s medical status (Summary of the Invention; column 2, lines 36 – 53; column 3, lines 1 – 15). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Peroulis in view of Sawasaka et al. to further analyze the gas concentration data for assessing physiological aspects, as taught by Kim (USPN 10,376,200), since this yields medical information of interest.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroulis (USPGPub 2020/0326293) in view of Sawasaka et al. (USPN 11,692,957) and Hadley et al. (USPGPub 2022/0357310). Peroulis and Sawasaka et al. (USPN 11,692,957) teach a gas sensing arrangement, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, which corresponds to each limitation of claim 20 with the exception of attachment thereof to an undergarment. However, Hadley et al. teaches a flatulence detection sensor which may be incorporated in clothing for providing the gas sensor in relation to an intended measurement position (paragraph [0025]). As such, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined appropriate manners to provide the gas sensor of Peroulis as modified by Sawasaka et al. in a usable configuration, including to incorporate the sensor elements in clothing/undergarments, as taught by Hadley et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ansley (USPGPub 2017/0278373) teaches a gas monitoring arrangement for assessing gas related to bowel movements. Abraham-Fuchs et al. (USPGPub 2004/0133116), Kimura (USPGPub 2013/0209315), and Voutilainen (USPGPub 2018/0172652) teach additional gas sensing arrangements that rely upon both measurement and reference signals for determining the concentration of the gas of interest. Rudmann et al. (USPN 10,307,090) teach an arrangement for optical sensing of gas components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791