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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on September 23, 2024 is acknowledged. The application will be examined accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 14, 2024 and March 5, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 58 be found allowable, claim 59 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 59 is verbatim identical to claim 58.
Claim Objections
Claims 47, 57 and 65 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent claims 47, 57 and 65, the limitation “the plurality…comprise” should be changed to “the plurality…comprises”.
In claim 65, the second instance of the limitation “a profile” should be changed to “the profile”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 49-51, 54, 58, 59, 66 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 49-51 and 66 recite “the processor”. It is unclear to which processor the limitation refers. Independent claims 47 and 65 recite a pair of processors.
Claim 54 recites “the volatile organic chemicals”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim 58 is indefinite because the subject matter of the claim is not commensurate with the scope of claim 57. Claim 57 explicitly defines “the profile” as a plurality of conductance or capacitance values, yet claim 58 recites that the profile is generated based on a prediction of a state of a subject, which itself is based on analysis of said conductance or capacitance values. In addition to reciting circular logic (the profile uses itself to generate itself), the subject matter of claim 58 contradicts claim 57. Due to the impossibility of reconciling the subject matter of claim 57 and the last clause of claim 58 (is the profile a number? a prediction?), claim 58 will not be examined on the merits.
Likewise claim 59 is indefinite.
Claim 66 recites “the predicted physiological state of the subject”, and claim 68 recites “the physiological state of the subject”. There is no antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims.
Due to the indefiniteness of claim 66, claim 66 will not be examined on the merits. It should also be noted that claim 66, like claims 58 and 59, recites circular logic. Specifically, claim 66 recites a step of generating a profile by using itself.
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.
Claims 47, 50-52, 54-57, 60, 63-65, 67, 68 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al. (“Patel”) (US 2012/0270205 A1).
With respect to claim 47, Patel discloses a system for predicting the presence of a physiological state (e.g. infection due to exposure to a pathogen, see [0024]) of a subject, the system comprising:
a sensor device comprising:
a plurality of chemical sensors (see [0025]), wherein the plurality of chemical sensors comprises a polymer-based sensor (see abstract);
a transmitter (see [0027]); and
a processor coupled to the plurality of chemical sensors and the transmitter (see [0027]), the processor programmed to:
measure, for each of the plurality of sensors, a respective value of a plurality of values (see [0027]), wherein each of the plurality of values is a capacitance value (see [0061]); and
transmit, via the transmitter, a profile (analyte signature) based on the plurality of values to a computing device (see [0024] and [0081]); and
a computing device comprising:
a processor programmed to:
receive the profile (see [0081]); and
detect, based on the profile, the presence of or change in one or more volatile chemicals associated with a change in the physiological state of the subject (see [0081]).
With respect to claim 50, the recitation “principal component analysis” is inherently abstract. That said, any calculation or series of calculations that convert(s) the plurality of values to the profile is/are deemed to anticipate the recitation. That said, the processor of the computing device is further programmed to:
perform a principal component analysis based on the plurality of values; and
generate the profile based on results of the principal component analysis (see [0024] and [0081]).
With respect to claim 51, the system further comprises a power source electronically coupled to the processor (see [0063]).
With respect to claim 52, the system utilizes porous polymer-based sensors (see abstract) that detect analytes in vapors and gases that pass therethrough (see abstract). Naturally, the polymer in the polymer-based sensor has an increased selectivity, based on a Linear Solvation Energy Relationship, for one or more volatile chemicals associated with the change in the physiological state of a subject.
With respect to claim 54, the volatile chemicals comprise ethanol (see [0037]).
With respect to claims 55 and 56, the physiological state comprises a state of susceptibility to infection, which is a predicted future change in physiological state (see [0024] disclosing exposure to a pathogen, which can lead to an infection).
With respect to claim 57, Patel also discloses a method for installing the system, the method comprising:
providing the system; and
activating, via the processor of the computing device, software stored on a memory which, when executed, predicts a physiological state (potential infection) of the subject based on the profile (see [0081]).
With respect to claim 60, the system utilizes porous polymer-based sensors (see abstract) that detect analytes in vapors and gases that pass therethrough (see abstract). Naturally, the polymer in the polymer-based sensor has an increased selectivity, based on a Linear Solvation Energy Relationship, for one or more volatile chemicals associated with the change in the physiological state of a subject.
With respect to claims 63 and 64, the method further includes installing the plurality of sensors in a room (see [0096]). Alternatively, the method includes attaching the sensors to the subject (see [0080]).
With respect to claim 65, Patel discloses the system discussed above. In addition, the processor of the computing device is configured to monitor changing concentrations of volatile compounds (see abstract) over time (see [0026]).
With respect to claim 67, the volatile compounds comprise ethanol (see [0037]).
With respect to claim 68, the system utilizes porous polymer-based sensors (see abstract) that detect analytes in vapors and gases that pass therethrough (see abstract). Naturally, the polymer in the polymer-based sensor has an increased selectivity, based on a Linear Solvation Energy Relationship, for one or more volatile chemicals associated with the change in the physiological state of a subject.
With respect to claim 70, given that the system monitors the concentration of an analyte over time (see [0026]), it is evident that the processor coupled to the plurality of chemical sensors measures, for each of the plurality of sensors, a respective value of a plurality of values at set intervals to create multiple profiles that are transmitted to the computing device.
Claims 47, 51, 53, 55-57, 62, 65, 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (“Sharma”) (US 2021/0082021 A1).
With respect to claim 47, Sharma discloses a system for predicting the presence of a physiological state (e.g. expiration date) of a subject (perishable item) (see abstract), the system comprising:
a sensor device (electronic nose) comprising:
a plurality of chemical sensors (see [0030]), wherein the plurality of chemical sensors comprises a metal-oxide-based sensor (see [0033]);
a transmitter (see Fig. 1 and [0028]); and
a processor coupled to the plurality of chemical sensors and the transmitter (the sensors are integrated into an “internet of things”, which comprises a processor, see Fig. 1 illustrating a drone), the processor programmed to:
measure, for each of the plurality of sensors, a respective value of a plurality of values (see [0033]-[0034]), wherein each of the plurality of values is a conductivity value (see [0033]); and
transmit, via the transmitter, a profile based on the plurality of values to a computing device (see Fig. 1 and [0034]); and
a computing device comprising:
a processor (see [0005]) programmed to:
receive the profile (see [0005]); and
detect, based on the profile, the presence of or change in one or more volatile chemicals associated with a change in the physiological state of the subject (see [0033]-[0035]).
With respect to claim 50, the recitation “principal component analysis” is inherently abstract. That said, any calculation or series of calculations that convert(s) the plurality of values to the profile is/are deemed to anticipate the recitation. That said, the processor of the computing device is further programmed to:
perform a principal component analysis based on the plurality of values; and
generate the profile based on results of the principal component analysis (see [0034]).
With respect to claim 51, the system further comprises a power source electronically coupled to the processor (see Fig. 1 illustrating sensors incorporated into a drone, which must have a power source).
With respect to claim 53, the sensors comprise a metal-oxide-based sensor, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 55 and 56, the physiological state comprises a current as well as future health state of the subject (see [0001]).
With respect to claim 57, Sharma also discloses a method for installing the system, the method comprising:
providing the system; and
activating, via the processor of the computing device, software stored on a memory which, when executed, predicts a physiological state (expiration date) of the subject based on the profile (see [0033]-[0035] and [0053]).
With respect to claim 62, the sensors comprise a metal-oxide-based sensor, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 65, Sharma discloses the system discussed above. In addition, the processor of the computing device is configured to monitor changing concentrations of volatile compounds (see [0033]) over time (see [0049]).
With respect to claim 69, the sensors comprise a metal-oxide-based sensor, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 70, given that the system monitors the concentration of an analyte over time (see [0049]), it is evident that the processor coupled to the plurality of chemical sensors measures, for each of the plurality of sensors, a respective value of a plurality of values at set intervals to create multiple profiles that are transmitted to the computing device.
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.
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 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel.
With respect to claim 48, while Patel discloses that the transmitter comprises a radio-frequency antenna (see [0027]), Patel does not explicitly disclose that the antenna can operate via near-field communication. Nevertheless, based on the disclosure of “low power” radio antennas, and given that NFC is a subset of radio communication (i.e. the form of communication taught by Patel encompasses NFC), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the radio transmitter taught by Patel to operate via NFC.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (“Martin”) (US 7,212,110 B1).
With respect to claim 49, while Patel discloses various ways of powering the system (see [0063]), Patel does not disclose that the processor is configured to receive power via the radio-frequency antenna. Nevertheless, based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system to implement other conventional means of powering the system, for example wireless charging via RF transmission, as taught by Martin (see abstract and lines 23-60, col. 1 disclosing that RF wireless changing is well-known). The modification would constitute substitution of one element for an equivalent for the same purpose, which is considered obvious.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Muthukumar et al. (“Muthukumar”) (US 2019/0250153 A1).
While Patel discloses that the sensors can detect pathogens, including viruses and bacteria (see [0067]), Patel does not explicitly disclose detection of the claimed pathogens. Nevertheless, based on the disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tailored the system to detect any conventional pathogen, including SARS-CoV-2 virus, as taught by Muthukumar (see [0143] disclosing list of viruses whose detection has practical use; see also [0195] disclosing how change in capacitance can be used to detect the disclosed analytes of interest). The practicality of detecting SARS-Cov-2 is well-documented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights