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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17047290, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 16-17 do not have sufficient support in the prior-filed ‘290 application. The ‘290 applications does not disclose contactless temperature sensing using far infrared radiation. As such the priority date for these claims is the filing date of the current application, 04/16/2024.
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 1-26 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.
Claims 1 and 24 recite “solidary” and it is unclear how to interpret this term. Examiner has not heard this term before thus is unsure of what its plain and ordinary meaning is, reviewing Merriam Webster Dictionary it refers to a Louisiana civil law term and “existing jointly and severally” (“Solidary.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/solidary. Accessed 30 Sep. 2025.). If applying this definition, it is unclear how the legal concept of “jointly and severally” (for example in liability) applies in the context of the physical structure. For the next step in interpretation Examiner went to the specification, Applicants have apparently are acted as their own lexicographers in view of [0077] (using pg pub for paragraph numbers) “When the material is dry, the passage are filled with material, thus creating permanent connections or bridge between the housing and the components. The said components thus become solidary with the housing.” and in [0079] “The housing 200 engulfs or surrounds the components in such a way that the components may not be extracted from the housing 200 without destroying the said housing 200. As such, the device 100 may not be disassembled. As such, the monitoring assembly 104 is solidary or combined to the housing 200. The solidarity allows the components of the monitoring assembly 104”. Then when reviewing claim 5 it seems to repeat what [0077] recites. The question is does “solidary” imply the physical structure of their apparent definition in claim [0077]? If it does then why is it claimed explicitly in Claim 5? Alternatively, is solidary just meaning “The housing 200 engulfs or surrounds the components in such a way that the components may not be extracted from the housing 200 without destroying the said housing 200.”? In view of the above solidary does not seem to define the metes and bounds of the claim and the claims are indefinite. Examiner would recommend an interview to further prosecution on this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 18, 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170223846 to Elolampi et al. (hereinafter Elolampi) in view of US 20140073970 to Ashby (hereinafter Ashby).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Elolampi discloses a physiological monitoring device ([0029]-[0030], Figs. 3A-7B see also [0102]) comprising:
a fixation band adapted to be fastened around a user’s torso ([0074] including “a pair of mounting projections, namely first and second elongated and generally flat straps . . . These representative mounting projections can be used, for example, to mechanically couple the encapsulated conformal electronic device 400 to a surface, such as a portion of a body part of a human.”, Figs. 6A-7B see also [0102]);
an elastic deformable body being made of elastic material ([0040]-[0041] including “. . . a silicone . . . elastomers (including a thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoset elastomer, or a biodegradable elastomer)”, [0046]-[0047]); being fastened to the fixation band ([0074], Figs. 6A-7B see also [0102]); and being deformed in response to an expansion of the user’s torso ([0045], Figs. 6A-7B, 10 see also [0102]; to the extent “being deformed in response . . .” is an intended use of the device the structure recited by the prior art is functionally capable of performing the intended use);
a deformation sensor assembly ([0045] including “Example applications include a motion sensor . . . a respiratory rhythm monitor . . . One or more device islands can be configured to include at least one multifunctional sensor, including . . . strain,” see also [0102]; strain sensors sense deformation) solidary anchored within the elastic deformable body and seamlessly enveloped by the elastic deformable body ([0040]-[0041] including “. . . a silicone . . . elastomers (including a thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoset elastomer, or a biodegradable elastomer)”, [0046]-[0048], [0061]-[0063] see also [0029], [0102], Fig. 8; elastomers are elastic and deformable. To the extent this may be claiming “product by process”), the deformation sensor assembly measuring a deformation of the elastic deformable body ([0045], Figs. 6A-7B, 10 see also [0102]; to the extent “a deformation of the elastic deformable body . . .” is an intended use of the device the structure recited by the prior art is functionally capable of performing the intended use. Examiner notes that as the strain sensor is fully encapsulated within the “elastic deformable body” it would sense deformations of that body); and
a processing unit in data communication with the at least one deformation sensor assembly ([0037]-[0039], [0044] see also [0102]), the processing unit being configured to determine a physiological parameter value of the user ([0037]-[0039], [0042], [0044] see also [0102]).
an interpretation of Elolampi may not specifically recite the using the measured deformation for determining a physiological parameter value.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Ashby teaches using the measured deformation for determining a physiological parameter value ([0048], [0054]-[0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi to include more specifically using the measured values from a deformation/strain sensor to determine a physiological value such as respiration rate as recited by Ashby because by monitoring their respiration rate they are able to increase the users awareness about their body avoiding issues associated with being overweight ([0003]-[0004], [0063]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi with the determination of physiological value based on deformation sensor data as recited by Ashby because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the physiological parameter value comprises a respiratory rate of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Ashby teaches wherein the physiological parameter value comprises a respiratory rate of the user([0048], [0054]-[0055] see also [0065]-[0066]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi to include more specifically using the measured values from a deformation/strain sensor to determine a physiological value such as respiration rate as recited by Ashby because by monitoring their respiration rate they are able to increase the users awareness about their body avoiding issues associated with being overweight ([0003]-[0004], [0063]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi with the determination of respiration rate based on deformation sensor data as recited by Ashby because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses a heart rate sensor ([0038], [0043], [0097] see also [0029], [0098], [0102]).
Regarding Claim 18, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses wherein the monitoring assembly further comprises a memory for storing data received by the processing unit from the at least one sensor ([0035], [0044], [0095]).
Regarding Claim 20, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses the elastic deformable body being made of an elastomeric, stretchable and impact resistant material ([0040], [0047]-[0048] see also [0102]; Discloses various elastomers which are “stretchable” and “impact resistant”. Examiner notes that the terms “stretchable” and “impact resistant” are relative terms to some degree they are currently being interpreted broadly and not as being indefinite).
Regarding Claim 21, an interpretation of Elolampi discloses the elastic deformable body comprising a first end adapted to be attached to a first fixation band end and a second end adapted to be attached to a second fixation band end ([0074], Fig. 7A-7B; Strap 450/452 is attached to either side of the housing of the conformal electronics device).
Regarding Claim 22, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses the elastic deformable body having an elongated curved shape to conform with the user’s torso ([0067], [0082] including “the encapsulation housing unit or component(s) can be molded into non-planar shapes to which the conformal electronic devices can also be conformed. In an example, the non-planar conformation or contouring can be determined based on the shape of the body part or other surface to which the encapsulated conformal electronic device is to be mounted or coupled.”, [0087], [0099] including “FIG. 10 shows non-limiting examples of areas of the body proximate to which the example encapsulated conformal electronic device can be disposed, including . . . torso”).
Regarding Claim 23, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses the elastic deformable body having a having a desired shape to conform with the user’s torso ([0067], [0082] including “the encapsulation housing unit or component(s) can be molded into non-planar shapes to which the conformal electronic devices can also be conformed. In an example, the non-planar conformation or contouring can be determined based on the shape of the body part or other surface to which the encapsulated conformal electronic device is to be mounted or coupled.”, [0087], [0099] including “FIG. 10 shows non-limiting examples of areas of the body proximate to which the example encapsulated conformal electronic device can be disposed, including . . . torso”).
an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic deformable body having a wing shape to conform with a pectoral muscle or breast of the user. However, the claim element of a wing shape to conform with pectoral muscle or breast is obvious as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious when taking Elolampi in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape. Furthermore, there does not appear to be persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Regarding Claim 24, an interpretation of Elolampi disclose a method for measuring physiological parameters of a user, the method comprising:
fixing against a user’s torso ([0074] including “can be used, for example, to mechanically couple the encapsulated conformal electronic device 400 to a surface, such as a portion of a body part of a human.”, Figs. 6A-7B see also [0102]; ); a deformation sensor assembly ([0045] including “Example applications include a motion sensor . . . a respiratory rhythm monitor . . . One or more device islands can be configured to include at least one multifunctional sensor, including . . . strain,” see also [0102]; strain sensors sense deformation) solidary anchored to and seamlessly enveloped within an elastic deformable body ([0040]-[0041] including “. . . a silicone . . . elastomers (including a thermoplastic elastomer, a thermoset elastomer, or a biodegradable elastomer)”, [0046]-[0048], [0061]-[0063] see also [0029], [0102], Fig. 8; elastomers are elastic and deformable.), the deformation sensor assembly being in data communication with a controller ([0037]-[0039], [0044] see also [0102]);
measuring the deformation of the solidary enveloped deformation sensor assembly ([0037]-[0039], [0044]-[0045] including “Example applications include a motion sensor . . . a respiratory rhythm monitor . . . One or more device islands can be configured to include at least one multifunctional sensor, including . . . strain,” see also [0102]); and
measuring a strain value generated by the at least one deformation sensor assembly ([0035], [0037]-[0039], [0044]-[0045] including “Example applications include a motion sensor . . . a respiratory rhythm monitor . . . One or more device islands can be configured to include at least one multifunctional sensor, including . . . strain,” see also [0102]; recites gathering data from the various sensors including strain sensor to determine the respiration rate or breaths per minute).
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose the devices elastic body deforming in response to an expansion of the user’s torso; measuring a strain value in response to a plurality of deformations caused by inhalations and exhalations of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Ashby teaches the devices elastic body deforming in response to an expansion of the user’s torso ([0047]-[0048], [0054]-[0055] see also [0045]); measuring a strain value in response to a plurality of deformations caused by inhalations and exhalations of the user ([0047]-[0048], [0054]-[0055] see also [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi to include more specifically using the measured values from a deformation/strain sensor to determine a physiological value such as respiration rate as recited by Ashby because by monitoring their respiration rate they are able to increase the users awareness about their body avoiding issues associated with being overweight ([0003]-[0004], [0063]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi with the determination of physiological value based on deformation sensor data as recited by Ashby because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, while Elolampi discloses the use of a strain sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose measuring an increase in strain value from the deformation sensor assembly, the increase being indicative of an inhalation by the user; and measuring a decrease in strain value from the deformation sensor assembly, the decrease being indicative of an exhalation by the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Ashby teaches measuring an increase in strain value from the deformation sensor assembly, the increase being indicative of an inhalation by the user ([0047]-[0048], [0054]-[0055] see also [0045]); and
measuring a decrease in strain value from the deformation sensor assembly, the decrease being indicative of an exhalation by the user ([0047]-[0048], [0054]-[0055] see also [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi to include more specifically using the measured values from a deformation/strain sensor to determine a physiological value such as respiration rate as recited by Ashby because by monitoring their respiration rate they are able to increase the users awareness about their body avoiding issues associated with being overweight ([0003]-[0004], [0063]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conformable electronics device including a strain sensor as recited by Elolampi with the determination of physiological value based on deformation sensor data as recited by Ashby because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 26, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses a core body temperature of the user ([0042], [0046], [0069] see also [0102]) at a distance from the skin of the user ([0046] including “the encapsulation layer 130 can include holes, apertures, or otherwise openings such that one or more sensors included in the electronic circuitry 120 are exposed”; when interpreting “at a distance”/“contactless” in view of Applicants specification [0094])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view of Ashby in further view of Strain Gauges (Types of Strain Gauges, https://transducersensors.com/types-and-structures-of-strain-gauges/, 11/22/2017, viewed on 12/4/21 – Reference was recited in the parent application 17047290 and views of the page are also available on the wayback machine such as https://web.archive.org/web/20190423093130/https://transducersensors.com/types-and-structures-of-strain-gauges/) hereinafter Strain.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, while Elolampi discloses the use of a strain sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformable sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge attached to a deformable substrate plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches that foil strain gauges have a deformable backing or carrier of polycarbonate (ie deformable substrate plate) for carrying the foil pattern (ie strain gauge) (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a strain sensor to include a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformable substrate plate is made from thermoplastic or thermostable material.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the deformable substrate plate is made from thermoplastic or thermostable material (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses anchoring passages through internal electronic components (such as sensors) substrates for securing and positioning the components, the passages are filled with elastic material of the deformable body (abstract including “pass through holes in the substrate to engage complementary depressions in the other housing component”, [0048], [0061]-[0062], [0084]-[0085], [0089]).
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose the deformable substrate plate of the of the deformable sensor assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the substrate is the deformable substrate plate of the of the deformable sensor assembly (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”; ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic circuitry and sensor system with holes through the components for securing the electronic components as recited by Elolampi to include a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as an electronic component as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformable substrate plate is generally rectangular.
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformable substrate plate is generally rectangular.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the deformable substrate plate is generally rectangular (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 of the reference is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 8, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformation sensor is disposed at the center of the deformable substrate plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein each one of the at least one deformation sensor is disposed at the center of a corresponding one of the at least one deformable substrate plate. Str teaches the use of a strain gauge as a deformable sensor and Strain teaches that foil strain gauges have a rectangular backing or carrier, deformable substrate plate, with the strain gauge centered on the backing (see Fig. 1 which has been duplicated above see also Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 9, while Elolampi discloses a strain sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformation sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge is disposed and oriented on the deformable substrate plate.
an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformation sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the deformation sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge is disposed and oriented on the deformable substrate plate (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 of the reference is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the strain sensor is disposed and oriented so as to allow measurements of strain longitudinally along the fixation band.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic sensors), Ashby teaches wherein the strain sensor is disposed and oriented so as to allow measurements of strain longitudinally along the fixation band ([0048], [0054]-[0055], [0065]-[0066]; teaches a deformation/strain sensing disposed and oriented to sense the circumference of the users body for inhalation/exhalation which is in the longitudinal direction of the strap/band).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronic device with a strain gauge and its associated deformable substrate plate as recited by Elolampi in view of Strain to include orientating the deformation/strain sensor so as to allow it to measure inhalation and exhalation as recited by Ashby because by monitoring their respiration rate they are able to increase the users awareness about their body avoiding issues associated with being overweight ([0003]-[0004], [0063]). Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conformable electronics device including a strain gauge sensor as recited by Elolampi of Strain with the determination of inhalation/exhalation based on deformation sensor data as recited by Ashby because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, while Elolampi discloses a strain sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the deformation sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the deformation sensor assembly comprises a strain gauge (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 of the reference is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Regarding Claim 11, while Elolampi discloses a strain sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the strain gauge comprises a foil strain gauge.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches wherein the strain gauge comprises a foil strain gauge (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 of the reference is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view Ashby in further view of Strain in further view of US 20040027331 to Mochizuki et al. (hereinafter Mochizuki).
Regarding Claim 7, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses anchoring passages through internal electronic components (such as sensors) substrates for securing and positioning the components, the passages are filled with elastic material of the deformable body (abstract including “pass through holes in the substrate to engage complementary depressions in the other housing component”, [0048], [0061]-[0062], [0084]-[0085], [0089]).
an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose a strain gauge attached to a deformable substrate plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor (strain sensing devices), Strain teaches that foil strain gauges have a deformable backing or carrier of polycarbonate (ie deformable substrate plate) for carrying the foil pattern (ie strain gauge) (Metal Foil Strain Gauges Section including “A foil strain gauge (see Figure 1) is the most widely used type. A very thin metal foil pattern . . . is deposited onto a thin insulating backing or carrier (10~30 μm thick, usually epoxy, polyimide, or polycarbonate).”, Fig. 1; Fig. 1 is provided above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor system of Elolampi including a strain sensor to include a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing/carrier as taught by Strain because it would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; Strain recites a finite number of identified predictable solutions namely wire, foil, single crystal semiconductor, thin film strain gauges which are predictable solutions as they are based on the known electrical properties and provide a reasonable expectation of success as they are known. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements of Elolampi with Strain, as it is merely the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; Combining the use of strain sensor of Elolampi with the particular strain sensor using a foil strain gauge with polycarbonate backing as recited by Strain.
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose the anchoring passages being disposed at each corner of the deformable substrate plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor (anchoring strain sensors), Mochizuki teaches the anchoring passages being disposed at each corner of the deformable substrate plate ([0036] including “At four corners of the substrate 2, holes 6 are formed to secure the substrate 2 by screws”, [0060] including “is placed on the lower surface of the sensor substrate 2 (on which the strain sensors 7A-7D are formed).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a wearable having a housing with a strain gauge sensor including a deformable substrate as recited by Elolampi in view of Strain to include the mounting of the substrate of the strain gauge using holes at corners as recited by Moc because it is merely applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view Ashby in further view of Strain in further view of US 7740588 to Sciarra (hereinafter Sciarra).
Regarding Claim 13, while Elolampi recites a heart sensor ([0038], [0043], [0097] see also [0029], [0098], [0102]), optical sensing and LEDs ([0029], [0098] see also [0042], [0102]), an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose wherein the heart rate sensor comprises an infrared light emitting diode and a corresponding photoreceptor.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Sciarra teaches wherein the heart rate sensor comprises an infrared light emitting diode and a corresponding photoreceptor (Col 4:60-Col 5:22 including “heart rate sensor 30 includes a compliant flexible ribbon substrate 45 on which is mounted a light emitting sensor 32 comprising a high output infrared surface mount LED of sufficient power to illuminate the subject's skin to a depth of approximately 0.5 in. (12 mm). The preferred wavelength of emitted light is approximately 950 nm, in the infrared range. Spaced apart on either side of LED 32 are two or more surface mount high sensitivity PIN diode light-detecting elements, e.g., photo detectors 34”, Col 5:23-36 including “light-emitting and light-detecting elements are positioned over the skin 48 of the subject, and the infrared light rays 33 are emitted and reflected from a capillary bed 50 beneath the skin with an intensity variation proportional to the pulse or heart rate of the subject.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including LEDs, optical measurement elements and a heart rate sensor as recited by Elolampi to include the heart rate sensor comprises infrared LED and photoreceptor as recited by Sciarra because it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a particular form of heart rate sensing using LED/optical sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view Ashby in further view of US 20190029566 to Sundaram et al. (hereinafter Sundaram).
Regarding Claim 14, while Elolampi discloses optical sensing and LEDs ([0029], [0098] see also [0042], [0102]) sensor, an interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose an oxygen saturation sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Sundaram teaches an oxygen saturation sensor ([0051], [0062]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including LEDs and optical measurement elements as recited by Elolampi to include an oxygen saturation sesnor as recited by Sundaram because it is merely combining the recited structural elements of LED and optical sensor and a particular application of those structural elements oxygen saturation (aka pulse ox) which is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of gathering oxygen saturation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view Ashby in further view of Sundaram in further view of US 20170027523 to Venkatraman et al. (hereinafter Ven).
Regarding Claim 15, Elolampi further discloses optical sensing and LEDs ([0029], [0098] see also [0042], [0102]).
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose an oxygen saturation sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Sundaram teaches an oxygen saturation sensor ([0051], [0062]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including LEDs and optical measurement elements as recited by Elolampi to include an oxygen saturation sensor as recited by Sundaram because it is merely combining the recited structural elements of LED and optical sensor and a particular application of those structural elements oxygen saturation (aka pulse ox) which is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of gathering oxygen saturation.
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose an infrared light emitting diode and a corresponding photoreceptor.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Ven teaches an infrared light emitting diode and a corresponding photoreceptor ([0124]-[0125], [0213]-[0215] including “a light source emitting light having a wavelength in the infrared spectrum (for example, an LED that emits light having wavelengths corresponding to the IR spectrum) and photodiode positioned to sample, measure and/or detect a response or reflection of such light may provide data used to determine or detect SpO2.” See also [0117], [0310]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conformable electronics device including LEDs, optical measurement elements and oxygen saturation sensing as recited by Elolampi in view of Sundaram to include an oxygen saturation sensor as recited by Sundaram because it is merely combining the recited structural elements of LED and optical sensor of Elolampi in view of Sundaram with a more particular disclosure of a specific EM range for the LED and corresponding photodetector from Ven which is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the particular IR wavelength and photodetector receptor of Ven to Elolampi in view of Sundaram is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elolampi in view Ashby in further view of Melexis, Miniature digital infrared thermometer IC in surface-mount technology MLX90632, https://web.archive.org/web/20230811134530/https://www.melexis.com/en/product/MLX90632/Miniature-SMD-Infrared-Thermometer-IC#RelatedProductsSection, 8/11/23, viewed on 10/14/25 (hereinafter Melexis). Examiner notes the Melexis, MLX90632 FIR sensor Datasheet Revision 12, https://media.melexis.com/-/media/files/documents/datasheets/mlx90632-datasheet-melexis.pdf, , March 2023, viewed on 10/14/25 is also provided.
Regarding Claim 16, an interpretation of Elolampi further discloses a contactless ([0046] including “the encapsulation layer 130 can include holes, apertures, or otherwise openings such that one or more sensors included in the electronic circuitry 120 are exposed”; when interpreting “contactless” in view of Applicants specification [0094]) core body temperature sensor ([0042], [0069] see also [0102]).
An interpretation of Elolampi may not explicitly disclose body temperature sensor being a far-infrared thermal sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic sensing), Melexis teaches wearables with contactless body temperature sensor being a far-infrared thermal sensor (Pg 2. Including “The MLX906