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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statements (IDS) has been submitted by the Applicant.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed
on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, Invention II (claims 9-16) and Invention III (Claims 17-20) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 10517500)
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a physiological monitoring device for application to a user's skin [fig. 1B, element 100; col. 7: lines 23-38], comprising:
(a) a clinical-grade medical film having a top side and an opposite bottom side with a skin- compatible adhesive disposed on the bottom side [fig. 1B, element 166; col. 7: lines 54-67- col. 8: lines 1-12]; (b) at least two electrodes disposed on the bottom side and configured to sense at least one physiological metric from the user's skin [fig. 1B, elements 124, 126; col. 7: lines 15-53];
(c) an elastomeric membrane that is integrated with the top side of the clinical-grade medical film [fig. 1B, elements 214, 216; col. 7: lines 15-67, col. 10: lines 9-33];
(d) a plurality of undulated wires printed on an elastomeric membrane [fig. 1B, element 120; col. 7: lines 15-53, col. 9: lines 1-17]; and
(e) an electronic circuit disposed on the elastomeric membrane and electrically coupled to the at least two electrodes via the plurality of undulated wires [fig. 1B, element 108; col. 8: lines 31-57, line 58-col. 9: line 17], the electronic circuit including a plurality of circuit elements that sense the at least one physiological metric from the at least two electrodes [col. 7: lines 15-67], that convert the at least one physiological metric to a digital value [col. 2: lines 10-20, col. 15: lines 3-25], and that store the digital value for communication of the digital value to a remote device [col. 2: lines 10-20, col. 15: lines 3-25]
Regarding claim 5, Kumar further teaches the device further comprising a rechargeable battery that provides power to the plurality of circuit elements [fig. 2A, element 225; col. 7: lines 15-67, col. 9: lines 1-17]
Regarding claim 6, Kumar further teaches the device further comprising an elastomeric envelope surrounding the electronic circuit and the elastomeric membrane [fig. 1B, element 102; col. 7: lines 15-67]
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and in further view of Rogers (US 2013/0041235)
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches a physiological monitoring device for application to a user's skin
However, Kumar does not teach the at least one physiological metric comprises galvanic skin resistance
Rogers teaches the at least one physiological metric comprises galvanic skin resistance [par. 444, 653]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar, to incorporate the at least one physiological metric comprises galvanic skin resistance, for non-invasive sensing, as evidence by Rogers [par. 444].
Regarding claim 3, Rogers further teaches the at least one physiological metric comprises skin temperature [par. 344, 653]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar, to incorporate the at least one physiological metric comprises galvanic skin resistance, for considering adverse thermal effects of the sensor, as evidence by Rogers [par. 344].
Regarding claim 7, Rogers further teaches the elastomeric envelope comprises at least one of polyimide and polydimethylsiloxane [par. 30, 157, 662]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar, to incorporate the elastomeric envelope comprises at least one of polyimide and polydimethylsiloxane, for allowing the skin patch to conform well to skin, as evidence by Rogers [par. 157].
Regarding claim 8, Rogers further teaches the undulated wires comprise copper [par. 67, 232]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar, to incorporate the undulated wires comprise copper, as is a common element used for wires when high conductivity is required, as evidence by Rogers [par. 232].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and in further view of Rogers and Inan (US 2018/0160966)
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches a physiological monitoring device for application to a user's skin
However, Kumar does not teach the plurality of circuit elements comprises: a microcontroller, a thermistor, a digital potentiometer and a charging controller
Rogers teaches the plurality of circuit elements comprises: a microcontroller [par. 389], a thermistor [par. 448] and a charging controller [par. 531]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar, to incorporate the plurality of circuit elements comprises: a microcontroller, a thermistor and a charging controller, for measuring additional components of tissue and powering the device via wireless powering, as evidence by Rogers [par. 333, 531].
Inan teaches the plurality of circuit elements comprises: a digital potentiometer [par. 227]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kumar and Rogers, to incorporate the plurality of circuit elements comprises: a digital potentiometer, for ensuring the circuit can also be tuned for other excitation frequencies and current amplitudes, as evidence by Inan [par. 227].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of publish
ed 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights