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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 14-18 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.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “fixing or sealing the electronic device”. This limitation is unclear. Fixing to what? Sealing from what?
Claim 5 recites “the one or more copper-foil pattern layers disposed in the second area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 10 (11 by dependency) recites “a ratio between the long side and the short side”. A ratio of what? The length? The thickness? Curvature?
Claim 11 recites “the ratio”. The ratio of what? The length? The thickness? Curvature?
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) 1-3, 9-11, 15, 17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP2020014772A – cited by Applicant; translation provided by Examiner), hereinafter Watanabe, in view of Hong et al. (US 20150102939 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches: A living-body monitoring device comprising:
an electronic device including a circuit board (paragraph 0014; 0017); and
a living-body wearing instrument fixing or sealing the electronic device (paragraph 0021),
wherein a control unit, a battery, and an antenna are mounted on the circuit board (paragraph 0015-0017),
wherein the circuit board has a length in a longitudinal direction and a length in a transverse direction and includes one or more metal-foil pattern layers (paragraph 0021; figures 1-3), and
wherein the antenna is disposed at one end in the longitudinal direction of the circuit board (figure 1; figures 5A; paragraph 0017).
Watanabe does not mention that the metal foil is copper.
Hong teaches the use of copper trace layers in a medical device circuit (paragraph 0079, 0080, 0156, 0173). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the metal foil is copper as the substitution of one metal for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein a sensor is mounted on the circuit board (Watanabe - paragraph 0017),
wherein the living-body wearing instrument is an intraoral instrument (Watanabe - figure 1-5), and
wherein the living-body monitoring device is disposed in an oral cavity such that the longitudinal direction of the circuit board is aligned with a row of teeth (Watanabe - figure 1, 7, 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 2, wherein the intraoral instrument is an orthodontic appliance, a denture, or an implant (Watanabe - figure 7; paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the battery is disposed on a side opposite to the antenna with the control unit interposed therebetween (Watanabe - figure 1 shows battery 6 and antenna module 3 on opposite sides). Regarding the control unit, Watanabe shows processing unit 4 near the module 3, but does not explicitly mention it being “therebetween”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device with the control unit interposed therebetween as it has been held that rearrangement of parts only take routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a long side and a short side (Watanabe - figure 1), and
wherein a ratio between the long side and the short side is equal to or greater than 2 (Watanabe - figure 1 shows an elongated device).
While Watanabe does not explicitly mention the ratio of the sides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein a ratio between the long side and the short side is equal to or greater than 2 as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 10, but do not explicitly mention wherein the short side is less than 15 mm the long side is less than 30 mm and the ratio between the long side and the short side is equal to or greater than 3.5 and equal to or less than 7. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the short side is less than 15 mm the long side is less than 30 mm and the ratio between the long side and the short side is equal to or greater than 3.5 and equal to or less than 7 as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 2, wherein the antenna is located on a lip side in the oral cavity when the living-body monitoring device is disposed in the oral cavity (Watanabe - figure 1, 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the living-body monitoring device is disposed on a palate side in the oral cavity (Watanabe - figures 2 and 3 show parts of the device on the palate side).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hong, further in view of Patel et al. (WO 2018044959 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Patel.
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board includes a first area which is an area in which the antenna is disposed (Watanabe - figure 5 element 8) and a second area which is an area other than the first area, and wherein one or more copper-foil pattern layers out of the one or more copper-foil pattern layers disposed in the second area (Watanabe - figure 5 element 62; paragraph 0021) are grounded (Hong - paragraph 0079-0080).
Watanabe in view of Hong do not mention wherein the antenna is a monopole antenna.
Patel teaches the use of a monopole antenna in an intraoral device (paragraph 0111; 0136; 0139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the antenna is a monopole antenna as the substitution of one antenna type for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hong, further in view of Fujita et al. (US 20030085994 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Fujita.
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 2, but do not mention wherein the control unit sets a first radiated radio wave intensity which is an intensity of radio waves radiated from the antenna when the living-body monitoring device is disposed inside of the oral cavity and a second radiated radio wave intensity which is an intensity of radio waves radiated from the antenna when the living-body monitoring device is disposed outside of the oral cavity to be different, and wherein a ratio of the second radiated radio wave intensity to the first radiated radio wave intensity is equal to or greater than 0.1 and equal to or less than 0.2.
Fujita teaches adjusting transmission power for a medical device configured to be located within a body based on strength of radio signals reaching an external receiver (paragraph 0015, 0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the control unit sets a first radiated radio wave intensity which is an intensity of radio waves radiated from the antenna when the living-body monitoring device is disposed inside of the oral cavity and a second radiated radio wave intensity which is an intensity of radio waves radiated from the antenna when the living-body monitoring device is disposed outside of the oral cavity to be different in order to save on battery life and ensure signal is properly transmitted/received.
Regarding radio wave intensity ratios, though not explicitly noted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein a ratio of the second radiated radio wave intensity to the first radiated radio wave intensity is equal to or greater than 0.1 and equal to or less than 0.2 as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hong, further in view of Chandra et al. (In-Mouth Antenna for Tongue Controlled Wireless Devices: Characteristics and Link-Loss; 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Boston, Massachusetts USA, August 30 - September 3, 2011), hereinafter Chandra.
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 2, but do not mention wherein a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the antenna is directed outside of the oral cavity via the lips when the living-body monitoring device is disposed in the oral cavity.
Chandra teaches that the strongest signal from an intraoral transmitter is when the mouth is open (section IV, V and Table II) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the antenna is directed outside of the oral cavity via the lips when the living-body monitoring device is disposed in the oral cavity in order to obtain the strongest signal possible.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hong, further in view of Chandra, further in view of Fujita, Further in view of Shanjani et al. (US 20180000563 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Shanjani.
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe in view of Hong teach: The living-body monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein a sensor is mounted on the circuit board (Watanabe - figure 1),
wherein the living-body wearing instrument is an intraoral instrument (Watanabe - figure 1, 7), but do not mention wherein the control unit switches a communication status according to the open/closed state of the lips of the wearer of the living-body monitoring device detected by the sensor.
Chandra teaches that the strongest signal from an intraoral transmitter is when the mouth is open as opposed to closed (section IV, V and Table II).
Fujita teaches adjusting transmission power for a medical device configured to be located within a body based on strength of radio signals reaching an external receiver (paragraph 0015, 0068) in order to save battery life. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the antenna is directed outside of the oral cavity via the lips when the living-body monitoring device is disposed in the oral cavity in order to obtain the strongest signal possible.
In view of the teachings of Chandra and Fujita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the control unit switches a communication status according to the open/closed state of the lips of the wearer of the living-body monitoring device detected by the sensor in order to save battery life.
Watanabe in view of Hong, in view of Chandra in view of Fujita do not mention wherein the sensor detects an open/closed state of the lips of a wearer of the living-body monitoring device.
Shanjani teaches wherein the sensor detects an open/closed state of the lips of a wearer of the living-body monitoring device (paragraph 0287). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device wherein the sensor detects an open/closed state of the lips of a wearer of the living-body monitoring device in order to automatically adjust a communication status of the device to save battery life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791