Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/651,402

WEARABLE SENSOR AND SYSTEM THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Emfit Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
31%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 6m
To Grant
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 31% of cases
31%
Career Allow Rate
167 granted / 535 resolved
-38.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 6m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
589
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 535 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Non-wearable sensor and system thereof”. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ballistocardiograph sensing means in claim 3 which is the ferroelectret sensor, see ¶12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim 1-4 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. It is unclear if the device claimed is the embodiment in the specification where the monitor is worn during the day and then placed under the mattress or the stationary embodiment in the specification where the wearable component and the mattress sensor are different components. The terms stationary, non-contact and non-wearable would seem to best fit the stationary embodiment but the specification also calls the wearable chest sensor non-wearable which makes the interpretation and scope unclear. Additionally, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensor” at the end of claim 1 and it is not clear if this refers to the ferroelectret sensor or the entire nonwearable ssensor. Claim 2 is 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. The claim recites that the sensor dimension is 50 x 60 mm but it is not clear if this refers to the ferroelectret sensor or the whole non-wearable sensor including the housing. Claim 3 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. It is unclear whether the ballistocardiograph sensing means is an additional component to the non-wearable sensor as it is described in the specification as the ferroelectret sensor already claimed in claim 1. 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. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmeink et al. US 2011/0046434. Regarding claim 1, Schmeink discloses a non-wearable sensor for stationary monitoring for being placed during nighttime under a mattress for non-contact, non-wearable nighttime monitoring, the non-wearable sensor comprising: an enclosure ([¶36] monitor 120), an integrated ferroelectret sensor fitted to an outside of the enclosure to increase a sensitivity of the sensor ([¶36] sensor 122 is an ferroelectret foil). Regarding claim 3, Schmeink discloses the sensor further comprising a ballistocardiograph sensing means for detecting heart rate and breathing rate ([¶37] the ferroelectret foil senses the impact created by the movement of the heart which is a ballistocradiogram). 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeink. Regarding claim 2, Schmeink does not specifically disclose a sensor dimension of 50 x 60 mm. However, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the sensor as claimed because Applicant has not disclosed that 50 x 60 mm sizing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Schmeink, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either the ferroelectret foil taught by Schmeink or the claimed sensor dimensions because both sensors would perform the same function of sensing heart movement with a small inconspicuous sensor equally well considering the typical size of an adult and mattress. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Schmeink to obtain the invention as specified in the claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmeink in view of Brauers et al. WO 2008/096307 A1. Regarding claim 4, Schmeink does not disclose the sensor further comprising a rechargeable battery. Brauers teaches a similar foil based sensor system for use with a mattress that has rechargeable batteries ([pg. 7]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Schmeink with the rechargeable batteries of Brauers in order to have a backup power source ([pg. 7]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rantala US 2009/0312612. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm. 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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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. /MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599304
CONFIGURABLE HARDWARE PLATFORM FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF A LIVING BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12484853
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERACTING WITH AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12478282
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COLLECTING SPIROMETRY DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471854
Systems and Methods For Monitoring a Patient
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12453483
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING BLOOD PRESSURE ZONES DURING AUTOREGULATION MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
31%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (+29.7%)
5y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 535 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month