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.
Claim 1- 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.
As to claim 1, the “communications hub” is not positively recited and this introduces ambiguity as to the scope of the claim. For purposes of examination, it is understood as not requiring a communications hub, but rather able to communicate with a communications hub.
Also as to claim 1, the claim requires the detection of a concentration of a drug, but later also requires only for the drug to be “detected.” It is not clear whether the same detection of concentration is what determines if the drug “is detected” and should be clarified. The same may be said of similar language in claim 18.
As to claim 2, is it not clear what is to be made of the requirement of this claim, which requires a biological sensor when a biosensor is already recited in claim 1.
As to claim 15, this claim recites a geofencing application. It is not clear what is to be made of this claim when geofencing component is already recited in claim 1.
As to claims 16 and 18, there are two alerts that appear to be generated in the claim. The first is when the distance exceeds a predetermined threshold and the second is when drug is detected and/or the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area. When is the alert actually generated?
Also as to claim 18, there is lack of antecedent basis in the claim for the term “system” in line 8 of the claim.
Also as to claim 18, it is not clear whether the “emergency alert” is the same or different from the “alert” that is generating when (i) the drug is detected and/or (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0100071 A1 (Heikenfeld) in view of US 2017/0193787 A1 to Devdas et al. (“Devdas”).
As to claim 1, Heikenfeld discloses a system comprising:
a wearable detector component comprising a biosensor configured to detect a concentration of a drug in a subject's body through a biological sample (see [0008] and [0074]);
a first communication circuitry for transmitting the data to a remote device (see [0036]);
a first power source configured to supply energy to the detector component and the communication circuitry (see [0036]).
Heikenfeld teaches that using location to determine whether a user is on the job to facilitate compliance with safety and/or anti-drug policies and thus discloses wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when (i) the drug is detected and/or (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area (see, e.g., [0062]-[0064] and [0071], and [0075]), but fails to disclose
a proximity sensor configured to determine a distance between the subject's body and a communication hub, wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when said distance exceeds a predetermined threshold distance; and
a geofencing component configured to set up a virtual boundary around a defined geographical area;
wherein the detector component is configured to generate detection data upon identifying the drug, and the proximity sensor is configured to monitor the subject's distance relative to the communication hub, and wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when (i) the drug is detected and/or (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area.
In a similar location-tracking device, Devdas discloses a proximity sensor configured to determine a distance between the subject's body and a communication hub (see [0029]), wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when said distance exceeds a predetermined threshold distance (see [0069]); and
a geofencing component configured to set up a virtual boundary around a defined geographical area (see [0063]-[0064]);
wherein the detector component is configured to generate detection data upon identifying the drug, and the proximity sensor is configured to monitor the subject's distance relative to the communication hub, and wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area (see [0069], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heikenfeld and Devdas in order to achieve the predictable result of alerting authorities or coworkers of an impaired person being in an unauthorized work zone (such as the bridge of a ship).
As to claim 2, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the detector component comprises at least one of a gas sensor, a chemical sensor, and a biological sensor (see [0074]).
As to claim 3, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the communication circuitry includes at least one of a near field communication device, Bluetooth communication device, and WIFI communication device (see [0072]-[0073]).
As to claim 4, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the first power source includes a battery housed within a case of the wearable detector component (see [0037]).
As to claim 6, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the detector component comprises a plurality of sensors capable of detecting biological materials, narcotics, and combinations thereof (see [0040]).
As to claim 7, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the remote device includes a processor, a memory, a second communication circuitry, and a second power source for processing the data collected by the detector component (see [0036]).
As to claim 8, Heikenfeld further discloses software stored in the memory of the remote device for analyzing the data collected by the detector component (see [0036] – the phone may display the data and issue alarms, which is data analysis).
As to claim 9, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the software is an application downloadable from an application store and configured to be automatically updated with new chemical signatures (see [0036] – such software is capable of being downloaded).
As to claim 10, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the application comprises adjustable thresholds for detecting a chemical present in certain amounts (see [0043]).
As to claim 11, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the application is configured to broadcast an alert or generate a notification upon detection of the chemical (see [0010]).
As to claim 12, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the application uses location information from the remote device to identify a location of the human body (see [0062]).
As to claim 13, Heikenfeld further discloses wherein the application is configured to alert authorities in event certain chemicals are detected (see [0075]).
As to claim 15, Devdas further discloses wherein the system is configured to transmit an emergency alert comprising an emergency location when a wearable device comprising a geofencing application enters or exits the defined geographical area (see [0063]-[0069]).
As to claim 16, Heikenfeld discloses a method comprising:
sensing a concentration of a drug in a subject's body using a detector component comprising a biosensor configured to detect the drug through a biological sample (see [0008] and [0074]); and
transmitting data from the detector component to a remote device via a communication circuitry (see [0036]).
Heikenfeld teaches that using location to determine whether a user is on the job to facilitate compliance with safety and/or anti-drug policies and thus discloses wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when (i) the drug is detected and/or (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area (see, e.g., [0062]-[0064] and [0071], and [0075]) and thus discloses wherein a detector component is configured to generate detection data upon identifying the drug, but fails to disclose the steps of
determining a distance between the human body and a communication hub, wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when said distance exceeds a predetermined threshold; and
transmitting an emergency alert when at least one of the drug is detected and a wearable device comprising a geofencing application enters or exits the defined geographical area; and
a proximity sensor is configured to monitor the subject's distance relative to the communication hub, and
wherein alerts are generated when (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area.
In a similar location-tracking device, Devdas discloses determining a distance between the human body and a communication hub (see [0029]), wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when said distance exceeds a predetermined threshold (see [0069]); and
transmitting an emergency alert when at least one of the drug is detected and a wearable device comprising a geofencing application enters or exits the defined geographical area (see above); and
a proximity sensor is configured to monitor the subject's distance relative to the communication hub (see above), and
wherein alerts are generated when (ii) the subject moves beyond the predetermined threshold distance or outside the defined geographical area (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Heikenfeld and Devdas in order to achieve the predictable result of alerting authorities or coworkers of an impaired person being in an unauthorized work zone (such as the bridge of a ship).
As to claim 17, Devdas further discloses wherein the emergency alert comprises an emergency location (se [0069]-[0070]).
As to claim 18, see treatment of claim 16 (Examiner notes the readings may be continuous in Heikenfeld as disclosed in [0064]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikenfeld in view of Devdas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0115198 A1 to Findlay et al. (“Findlay”).
As to claim 5, neither Heikenfeld nor Devdas discloses an air flow induction device to ensure continuous flow of air to the detector component. However, such a device is shown by Findlay (see Fig 3, element 330). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing of Heikenfeld with an additional sensor of the type disclosed by Findlay in order to provide the predictable result of reducing false positives by comparing, for example, the results of the sweat detection of Heikenfeld with the air detection of Findlay.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Messersmith whose telephone number is (571)270-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, 8:30 am - 5 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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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 J MESSERSMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights