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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Gaff does not expressly or inherently describes at least, for example, the feature of "a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 02 to 0.8," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
829
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1 – Goff Annotated Fig. 6
Goff teaches a housing (fig. 6: 100: combination of 120 and 110) and wherein a ratio of a first width of the housing (see Examiner Fig. 1 above) to a second width of the housing (see Examiner Fig. 1 above) is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8 (see Examiner Fig. 1 above, where the first width appears to be around half of a length of the second width, and therefore a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing would be around .5).
However, although Examiner fig. 1 above shows the first width of the housing being around half of a length of the second width of the housing, in the instance that this is not explicitly disclosed by Goff, claim 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C 103, as follows:
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected, and also because someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would not pick a ratio that was too small or too big.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) / 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et al. (US 2019/0142625).
In re claim 1, Goff discloses a biological information measurement apparatus (fig. 1: 100; [0105, 0116]) comprising:
a detection unit (fig. 6: pulse oximetry 144; [0116]) including a light-emitting unit ([0116]: pulse oximetry 144 would have a light-emitting unit; [0117]: another example of a pulse oximetry module has a part which emits light) and a light-receiving unit ([0116]: pulse oximetry 144 would have a light-receiving unit; [0117]: another example of a pulse oximetry module has a part which receives light);
an inertial sensor (fig. 6: 140 [0116]) configured to detect a body motion of a test subject ([0116]: 140 may include an accelerometer which would detect body motion of a test subject; [0029]); and
a housing (fig. 6: 100: combination of 120 and 110) having a measurement surface (110; [0105]) configured to face the test subject ([0107]: bottom surface of 110 which conforms to anatomy of a wearer; fig. 2) and accommodating the detection unit and the inertial sensor (fig. 6: 110 includes a cut-out for 120 which contains the detection unit 144 and the inertial sensor 140, and is interpreted as accommodating the detection unit and the inertial sensor under broadest reasonable interpretation by providing space for them),
wherein in a plan view of the measurement surface (fig. 6), a first width (fig. 6: top to bottom length of 110) of the housing along a parallel axis (fig. 6: axis going top to bottom on 110) parallel to an axis of the inertial sensor (fig. 6: axis going top to bottom of a top surface of 140; fig. 17) is different from a second width (fig. 6: left to right length of 110) of the housing (fig. 6) along an orthogonal axis orthogonal to the axis of the inertial sensor (fig. 6: orthogonal to the axis of the inertial sensor is an axis going left to right of 140; fig. 6: orthogonal axis is left to right axis of 110), and
*a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8 (see Examiner Fig. 1 above, where the first width appears to be around half of a length of the second width, and therefore a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing would be around .5).
*Regarding the limitations directed to “a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8”, although Examiner fig. 1 above shows the first width of the housing being around half of a length of the second width of the housing, in the instance that this is not explicitly disclosed by Goff, claim 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as follows:
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected, and also because someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would not pick a ratio that was too small or too big.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 2, Goff discloses wherein the first width is smaller than the second width (fig. 6: length from top to bottom of 110 is less than the length going left to right of 110).
In re claim 3, Goff discloses wherein the measurement surface includes an adhesive layer [0023].
In re claim 6, Goff discloses a biological information measurement set (fig. 2: combination of 100 and 130).
Regarding the limitations “a biological information measurement set comprising:
a biological information measurement apparatus including a detection unit including a light-emitting unit and a light-receiving unit,
an inertial sensor configured to detect a body motion of a test subject, and
a housing having a measurement surface configured to face the test subject and accommodating the detection unit and the inertial sensor; and
...wherein in a plan view of the measurement surface, a first width of the housing along a parallel axis parallel to an axis of the inertial sensor is different from a second width of the housing along an orthogonal axis orthogonal to the axis of the inertial sensor, and
a ratio of the first width of the housing to the second width of the housing is in a range of 0.2 to 0.8”,
see in re claim 1 above.
Regarding the limitation, “a wearing tool configured to cover the housing and press the biological information measurement apparatus to the test subject”, Goff discloses a wearing tool ([0066]: headband which secures the electronics housing to a forehead) configured to cover the housing ([0066]: headband would cover at least part of the housing) and press the biological information measurement apparatus to the test subject [0066],
In re claim 7, Goff discloses wherein a facing surface of the housing (see in re claim 4 above) in contact with the wearing tool is implemented by an elastic member ([0105]: 120 may be a softer elastomer which is an elastic member and would be in contact at least indirectly with the wearing tool [0066]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et al. (US 2019/0142625) in view of another embodiment of Goff.
In re claim 4, Goff discloses wherein the housing has a facing surface (fig. 6: top of 120) facing the measurement surface (fig. 6: bottom of the facing surface would face toward the measurement surface).
Goff fails to disclose wherein the facing surface is a convex curved surface.
Another embodiment of Goff (fig. 16A; [0094, 0131]) teaches wherein a facing surface (fig. 16a: top portion of 100) is a convex curved surface (fig. 16a).
Goff further teaches that the downward peripheral portion of housing 105 ([0131]; fig. 16a) provides direct coupling with the skin [0131].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the biological information measurement apparatus of Goff, to provide wherein the facing surface is a convex curved surface, as taught by the second embodiment of Goff, because doing so would provide better coupling with the skin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et al. (US 2019/0142625).
In re claim 5, Goff discloses wherein the measurement surface has a rectangle shape (fig. 6: 110 is rectangular) in the plan view of the measurement surface (fig. 6).
Goff fails to disclose wherein the measurement surface has an elliptical shape in the plan view of the measurement surface.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the measurement surface of Goff to instead have an elliptical shape in the plan view of the measurement surface, because doing so would be a change in shape, as shown In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights