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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 27-40 without traverse in the reply received on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 41-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 27-40 are hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 01/14/2025, 01/30/2025, and 09/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 31-33, 35-36, 38, and 40 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.
Regarding claim 31, the claim recites “wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device”. Neither claim 31 or claim 30, from which claim 31 depends, requires any pin outputting the level greater than the second threshold. Claim 30 recites the method comprising the response to four different scenarios, including two scenarios wherein the signal output pin outputs a level greater than a second threshold and two scenarios wherein the signal output pin outputs a level less than a first threshold. Therefore, in the scenario that the signal output pin outputs a level less than a first threshold, then the step of “detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device” is rendered indefinite as the signal output pin would not output a level greater than the second threshold.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: if a pin outputs the level greater than the second threshold through the signal output pin, detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device”. In this interpretation, the method steps are only carried out if the a pin outputs the level greater than the second threshold through the signal output pin.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites “wherein the at least two gasbags comprise a first gasbag and a second gasbag” in lines 1-2 and further recites “the gasbag” in line 9. It is unclear whether the gasbag is intended to refer to the first gasbag or the second gasbag. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the recitations of “the gasbag” in lines 4 and 9 are interpreted as “one of the at least two gasbags”.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites “when the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device, the non-gasbag watchband blocks the air nozzle of the air pump;” in lines 2-3 and “when the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration is less than the first rate threshold, determining that the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device” in lines 10-12. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear when the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device. Claim 34, from which claim 35 depends, recites wherein a gasbag is mounted on the wearable device and the identifier is detected. Therefore it is unclear whether a gasbag or non-gasbag watchband are mounted on the wearable device following the “when” statement of lines 2-3. Further, the recitation of “determining that the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device” at the end of the claim is rendered indefinite with respect to the limitations of “when the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device, the non-gasbag watchband blocks the air nozzle of the air pump”. It is unclear how the non-gasbag watchband can be mounted and the second gasbag can be mounted simultaneously. It is suggested that Applicant amend claim language to clearly state the method steps being performed in each claim. The recitations of “when” in the claims do not clearly recite the method steps occurring, but rather recite method steps that may occur in response to conditions that are not necessarily occurring in the claims. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “the method further comprises mounting a non-gasbag watchband on the wearable device, wherein the non-gasbag watchband blocks the air nozzle of the air pump; and wherein detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: determining that the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration is 0, or that the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration is greater than or equal to a first change rate threshold, determining that no gasbag is mounted on the wearable device, or determining that the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration is less than the first change rate threshold, determining that the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device.”
Regarding claim 38, the claim recites “the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the second gasbag, and the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the non-gasbag watchband” in lines 2-3. It is unclear how the same positive magnetic pole can be disposed on two distinct elements.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the second gasbag, and another positive magnetic pole is disposed on the non-gasbag watchband”.
Regarding claim 40, the claim recites “obtaining one or more first pressures collected by the first pressure sensor based on an interval during a first preset duration; obtaining one or more second pressures collected by the second pressure sensor, each second pressure being collected based on a time interval having a first preset duration” in lines 9-13. The first part of this recitation indicates that the one or more first pressures are based on an interval during a first preset duration, and the one or more second pressures are collected based on a time interval having a first preset duration. It is unclear if the time intervals relating to the one or more second pressures are the same or different than the interval relating to the one or more first pressures. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “obtaining one or more first pressures collected by the first pressure sensor based on an interval during a first preset duration; obtaining one or more second pressures collected by the second pressure sensor, each second pressure being collected based the interval during a first preset duration”.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0085319 by Lin – cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Lin” in view of US Patent Publication 2020/0272106 by Johnson, hereinafter “Johnson” in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0223736 by Wang et al., hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 27, Lin teaches a method for a wearable device, the method comprising: detecting, based on a wrist circumference of a user, whether the gasbag mounted on the wearable device matches the wrist circumference of the user (Figs. 1-10 of Lin teaches a wearable device 100 comprising a detachable bladder 30 (i.e., gasbag). Par. [0050-0051] teaches that different sizes of detachable bladders can be used (See Figs 5-6), and that the length (i.e., size) of the bladder is to be based on the wrist circumference of the user, as appropriate sizing of the detachable bladder is expected to lead to high detection accuracy while causing relatively little discomfort to the human body.).
Lin does not teach performing this method when the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device.
Johnson teaches a method of attaching different mountable elements (i.e., bands) to a wearable device to be worn around the wrist and identifying the element mounted to the wearable device using an identification element 190. This identification element can indicate a characteristic of the mountable element, such as the size ([0058]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Lin, to include the identification element 190 of Johnson such that the method is performed when the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device, to determine the characteristics of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device, as taught by Johnson ([0058]). This modification would allow for identification of the differently sized bladders as taught by Lin, and the identification would aid in have high detection accuracy while causing relatively little discomfort to the human body, as taught by Lin.
Lin in view of Johnson do not teach in response to detecting that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device does not match the wrist circumference of the user, outputting first prompt information, wherein the first prompt information indicates to mount a gasbag that matches the wrist circumference of the user.
Wang teaches a method of outputting a prompt to the user of a wearable device configured to be worn on the wrist to adjust the size of band of the device in order to be appropriate with respect to the size of the wrist of the user in order to ensure accuracy of the measurement data ([0106-0107]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Lin in view of Johnson such that the method includes in response to detecting that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device does not match the wrist circumference of the user, outputting first prompt information, wherein the first prompt information indicates to mount a gasbag that matches the wrist circumference of the user, in order to ensure accuracy of the measurement, as taught by Wang ([0106-0107]). It is noted that Johnson teaches storing user preferences and settings, therefore it would be obvious to store preferences and settings related to the appropriate size of the gasbag of Lin for the user to obtain accurate measurement results.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang teaches the method according to claim 27, further comprising: detecting whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (The identification element of Johnson identifies the mountable element (i.e., gasbag) is mounted on the wearable and device and which element it is.); and wherein detecting, based on the wrist circumference of the user, whether the gasbag mounted on the wearable device matches the wrist circumference of the user comprises: in response to detecting that the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device, detecting an identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device (As taught by the identification element 190 of Johnson); and detecting, based on a mapping relationship between one or more wrist circumferences and one or more identifiers of gasbags, whether the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is an identifier of a gasbag mapped to the wrist circumference of the user (Lin teaches the mapping relationship between the size of the gasbag and the wrist circumference of the user (see pars. [0058-0059]). The combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang teaches determining whether the characteristics of the element (obtained via the identifier) are appropriate for measurement accuracy, and therefore the combination of references teaches whether the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is an identifier of a gasbag mapped to the wrist circumference of the user).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein detecting, based on the mapping relationship between the one or more wrist circumferences and the one or more identifiers of gasbags, whether the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the identifier of a gasbag mapped to the wrist circumference of the user comprises: when the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is not the identifier of the gasbag mapped to the wrist circumference of the user, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device does not match the wrist circumference of the user (the combination of references teaches outputting prompt to the user when the identified mounted gasbag is inappropriate (i.e., does not match the wrist of the user). See the rejection of claim 27); or when the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the identifier of the gasbag mapped to the wrist circumference of the user, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device matches the wrist circumference of the user (the combination of references contains a gasbag with a size that matches the mapping to a wrist circumference as taught by Lin, this appropriately sized gasbag would match the wrist circumference via the mapping).
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang, as applied to claim 28, in view of Non-Patent Literature DRV5032 Ultra-Low-Power Digital-Switch Hall Effect Sensor (2017) by Texas Instruments, hereinafter “TI DRV5032”.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein the wearable device comprises a magnetic sensor (Johnson, Figs. 6-8, the sensor such as detector 170 can include multiple magnetic elements in order to determine an arrangement of magnetic fields (i.e., north-south orientations) of the mountable element in order to identify the mountable element.). The combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang does not teach the magnetic sensor being a Hall effect sensor.
TI DRV5032 teaches a Hall effect sensor, which is a type of magnetic sensor. This sensor is configured to sense positive and negative magnetic fields applied to it (Page 11, Fig. 7-2). The positive and negative pins are considered the pins corresponding to an orientation relative to the magnetic field, where one of the pins (VCC or GND) is considered a positive pin and the other is considered a negative pin (Pages 8-9, 8.3.1 Magnetic Flux Direction, par. 2). The output pin responds to both positive and negative magnetic fields, and sensing the magnetic field above a threshold (BOP) can result in an output pulled low (as shown in Fig. 9 (Page 10)), or driven high depending on the CMOS architecture shown in Fig. 11. If the output is driven high, then the output response would be the opposite of that shown in Fig. 9, and sensing a magnetic field would result in a high output, and not sensing a magnetic field would result in a low output (Page 10, 8.3.2.3 Output Type). It is noted that the omnipolar functionality distinguishes between whether the output signal comes from OUT1 (positive direction) or OUT2 (negative direction) to determine whether the magnetic field is positive or negative.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Lin, Johnson, and Wang such that the magnetic sensor comprises a Hall effect sensor, and the Hall effect sensor comprises a positive pin, a negative pin, and a signal output pin, and the method comprises: in response to sensing a positive magnetic pole, outputting, by the positive pin, through the signal output pin, a level greater than a second threshold; in response to sensing a negative magnetic pole, outputting, by the negative pin, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold; in response to the positive pin not sensing the positive magnetic pole, outputting, by the positive pin, through the signal output pin, a level less than a first threshold, wherein the second threshold is greater than the first threshold; and in response to the negative pin not sensing the negative magnetic pole, outputting, by the negative pin, through the signal output pin, the level less than the first threshold, as taught by TI DRV5032. The replacement of the magnetic sensor of Johnson with the Hall effect sensor taught by TI DRV5032 merely comprises a simple substitution of one known element (TI DRV5032) for another (magnetic sensor of Johnson) to obtain predictable results of detecting a magnetic field. See MPEP 2143.I.B. It is noted that any threshold below the high output can be considered the second threshold and any threshold above the low output and below the second threshold can be considered the first threshold.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and TI DRV5032 teaches the method according to claim 30, wherein the wearable device comprises at least two gasbags (Fig. 5-6 of Lin depict more than two gasbags), magnetic poles are disposed on the gasbags of the at least two gasbags (magnetic poles (i.e., magnets) are disposed on each of the mountable elements to facilitate identification, as taught by Johnson), and a different magnetic pole is disposed on each gasbag (Johnson, [0050]; different arrangement of magnets are arranged on each identification element); wherein detecting whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on the level output through the signal output pin, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (The high outputted signal indicates a mounted gasbag); and wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device (See claim 30, the identification of the gasbag is completed by determining the pin/combination of pins that outputs the high level).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and TI DRV5032 teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein the at least two gasbags comprise a first gasbag and a second gasbag, the negative magnetic pole is disposed on the first gasbag, the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the second gasbag (Johnson teaches that the identification can include one or more magnets. If the identification element included one magnet, then gasbags would have to have different orientations of magnets in order to differentiate between gasbags), and detecting, based on the level output through the signal output pin, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: in response to the level output through the signal output pin being less than the first threshold, determining that no gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (An output having no signal response would indicate that there is no gasbag mounted, as no identification is made); or in response to the level output through the signal output pin being greater than the second threshold, determining that the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (An output having a high signal response would indicate that there is a gasbag mounted, as an identification is made).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and TI DRV5032 teaches the method according to claim 32, wherein detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: in response to the positive pin outputting, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the second gasbag (In the rejection of claim 32, the second gasbag has the positive pole, and therefore the positive pin outputting the level greater than the second threshold comprises the identification of the second gasbag); or in response to the negative pin outputting, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the first gasbag (In the rejection of claim 32, the first gasbag has the negative pole, and therefore the negative pin outputting the level greater than the second threshold comprises the identification of the first gasbag).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang, as applied to claim 28, in view of US Patent 6,228,035 by Packman et al. – cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Packman”.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein the wearable device comprises a differential pressure sensor (Lin, [0042]; pressure sensor 14 may be a differential pressure sensor) and a gasbag watchband (Lin, Figs. 1 and 3, the wrist band 12 cooperates with the gasbag), the differential pressure sensor is configured to detect a differential pressure at an air nozzle of an air pump in the wearable device (Lin, [0042]; The air pressure sensor detects the internal pressure of the gasbag. The annular post 331 (i.e., nozzle) of the air pump 13 is in direct communication with air delivery hole 33 of the gasbag, therefore the differential air pressure sensor detects a differential pressure at an air nozzle of an air pump), the gasbag is mounted on the gasbag watchband (Lin, the wrist band 12 and bladder 30 are separate components, but are coupled as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), and when the gasbag watchband on which the gasbag is mounted is mounted on the wearable device, an air intake (Lin, Fig. 9B; air delivery hole 33) on the gasbag communicates with the air nozzle (Lin, Fig. 9B, [0046]). The combination does not teach wherein detecting whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: controlling the air pump to blow air at a preset rate; obtaining a change rate of the differential pressure within a second preset duration based on the differential pressure at the air nozzle collected by the differential pressure sensor; and detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device; and wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device.
Packman teaches a method of determining the size of an inflatable bladder for blood pressure measurements. Packman teaches that the volume of the bladder is based on the length of the bladder, and that the size of the bladder can be determined based on the inflation rate of the bladder when the pump is operated at a constant rate (i.e., second preset duration). In this method, the inflation rate is monitored via the pressure sensor, and therefore comprises a change rate of pressure (Col. 3, lines 33-51; Col. 4, lines 23-32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Lin, Johnson, and Wang such that wherein detecting whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: controlling the air pump to blow air at a preset rate; obtaining a change rate of the differential pressure within a second preset duration based on the differential pressure at the air nozzle collected by the differential pressure sensor; and detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device; and wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device, in order to determine the size of the gasbag being used, as taught by Packman (Col. 3, lines 33-51; Col. 4, lines 23-32). It is noted that identifying the size of the attached gasbag is an objective of the combination of Lin, Johnson, and Wang. Further, the detachable bladders of Lin are different sizes and therefore have different volumes, therefore it would be obvious to use the air pump and change rate of the differential pressure sensor to determine the size (i.e., identifier) of the gasbag. It is further noted that the pressure used in this combination would be the differential pressure of Lin, as this is the pressure sensor present in the wearable device.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang in view of Packman, as applied to claim 34, in view of Chinese Patent Publication 111920401 by Gong, hereinafter “Gong”.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and Packman teaches the method according to claim 34, but does not teach the wherein the wearable device further comprises a non-gasbag watchband.
Gong teaches a wearable device configured to be worn on the wrist comprising an airbag and an air pump. Gong teaches that the wearable device is configured to have interchangeable bands, wherein one possible interchangeable band is a common watchband. Using this watchband comprises sealing the vent hole to waterproof the device while enabling the device to be used for daily wearing (Page 3, par. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Lin, Johnson, Wang, and Packman, such that the wearable device further comprises a non-gasbag watchband and the method further comprises mounting a non-gasbag watchband on the wearable device, wherein the non-gasbag watchband blocks the air nozzle of the air pump, to enable daily wear while remaining waterproof, as taught by Gong (Page 3, par. 1). It is noted that Packman teaches that the inflation rates (i.e., change rate of pressure differential) rises with decreasing volume of the air bag (See Figs. 4-6). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to set a first threshold of the change rate to be that of the smallest gasbag, wherein any change rate greater than this threshold detects a blockage of the air pump (the remaining volume would only comprise the internal air channel, which is significantly smaller and more rigid than the smallest gasbag), and subsequently identifies the non-gasbag watchband. Any change rate lower than this threshold would identify a gasbag mounted to the wearable device.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, Packman, and Gong teaches the method according to claim 35, wherein detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: in response to information that the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration is less than the first change rate threshold (The change rate being less than the first change rate threshold identifies that a gasbag is mounted. See the rejection of claim 35. Therefore, any change rate below the threshold would be used to identify which gasbag is mounted.), detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration and a mapping relationship between one or more change rates of a differential pressure and one or more identifiers of gasbags, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device (The change rate of the pressure during inflation is mapped to the identifiers of the different sized gasbags, therefore the identifier can be identified using the change rates within the second preset duration).
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang in view of TI DRV5032, as applied to claim 30, in view of Packman.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and TI DRV5032 teaches the method according to claim 30. It would have been prima facie obvious to modify this method in view of Packman as described above in the rejection of claim 34. The resulting method would teach: wherein the wearable device comprises: a differential pressure sensor (Lin, [0042]; pressure sensor 14 may be a differential pressure sensor), a gasbag watchband (See the rejection of claim 34), and at least two gasbags (See the rejection of claim 31), the differential pressure sensor is configured to detect a differential pressure at an air nozzle of an air pump in the wearable device (See the rejection of claim 34), the gasbag is mounted on the gasbag watchband, when the gasbag watchband on which the gasbag is mounted is mounted on the wearable device, an air intake on the gasbag communicates with the air nozzle (See the rejection of claim 34), and magnetic poles disposed on at least two of the following are the same: a first gasbag in the at least two gasbags, a second gasbag in the at least two gasbags, or a non-gasbag watchband (Johnson teaches that a plurality of magnets can be used as an identification element. If a plurality of magnets are used, at least two attachments must share a magnetic pole, as there are only two poles (positive and negative)); wherein detecting whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: controlling the air pump to blow air at a preset rate; obtaining a change rate of the differential pressure within second preset duration based on the differential pressure at the air nozzle collected by the differential pressure sensor (See the rejection of claim 34); and detecting, based on the level output through the signal output pin and the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (See the rejections of claims 33 and 34); and wherein detecting the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device comprises: detecting, based on which pin outputs, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold (See the rejection of claim 30) and the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, the identifier of the gasbag mounted on the wearable device (See the rejection of claim 34). It is noted that the use of the Hall effect sensors taught by Johnson and TI DRV5032 and the use of the change rate of pressure both identify the gasbag attachments. Therefore, using both methods in conjunction, simply comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, TI DRV5032, and Packman teaches the method according to claim 37, wherein the negative magnetic pole is disposed on the first gasbag, the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the second gasbag, and the positive magnetic pole is disposed on the non-gasbag watchband (Any combination of magnetic poles can be disposed on the various attachments, as Johnson teaches a combination of magnets can be used as an identifier.); and wherein detecting, based on the level output through the signal output pin and the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, whether the gasbag is mounted on the wearable device comprises: in response to the level output through the signal output pin being less than the first threshold, determining that no gasbag is mounted on the wearable device (See the rejection of claim 33); in response to the level output through the signal output pin being greater than the second threshold, and the negative pin outputting, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the first gasbag (See the rejection of claim 33); or in response to the level output through the signal output pin being greater than the second threshold, and the positive pin outputting, through the signal output pin, the level greater than the second threshold, detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, that the second gasbag or the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang in view of TI DRV5032 in view of Packman, as applied to claim 38, in view of Gong.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, TI DRV5032, and Packman teaches the method according to claim 38. It would have been prima facie obvious to modify this method in view of Gong as described above in the rejection of claim 35. The resulting method would teach: wherein when the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device, the non-gasbag watchband blocks the air nozzle of the air pump (See the rejection of claim 35); and wherein detecting, based on the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration, that the second gasbag or the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device comprises: in response to the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration being greater than or equal to a first change rate threshold, determining that the non-gasbag watchband is mounted on the wearable device (See the rejection of claim 35); or in response to the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration being less than the first change rate threshold, determining that the gasbag mounted on the wearable device is the second gasbag.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Johnson in view of Wang in view of Packman, as applied to claim 34, in view of US Patent Publication 2022/0382120 by Li et al., hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Lin, Johnson Wang, and Packman teaches the method according to claim 34, wherein the differential pressure sensor comprises a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor (a differential pressure sensor must comprise a first and a second pressure sensor to obtain two pressures for the differential), the first pressure sensor is configured to detect a first pressure at the air nozzle (See the rejection of claim 34), the second pressure sensor is configured to detect a second pressure, and the differential pressure at the air nozzle is a difference between the first pressure and the second pressure (this is the definition of a differential pressure); and wherein obtaining the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration based on the differential pressure at the air nozzle collected by the differential pressure sensor comprises: obtaining one or more first pressures collected by the first pressure sensor based on an interval during a first preset duration; obtaining one or more second pressures collected by the second pressure sensor, each second pressure being collected based on a time interval having a first preset duration, and one second pressure being collected in each respective time interval (The first present duration can be considered the deflation time periods taught by Packman, See Figs. 4-6. In the combination, a differential pressure sensor is used, and therefore first and second pressures are detected any time a differential pressure is taken); obtaining a first pressure average value based on first pressures collected within the second preset duration; obtaining a second pressure average value based on second pressures collected within the second preset duration; and obtaining the change rate of the differential pressure within the second preset duration based on the first pressure average value and the second pressure average value (The combination relies on a rate of change of the differential pressure measurement during the inflation period of the gasbag. This comprises the difference of at least two pressures from each sensor divided by the time in between the pressure measurements. Mathematically, this is analogous with the difference of the average pressure values of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor and dividing the difference by the elapsed time). The combination of Lin, Johnson, Wang, and Packman does not teach the second pressure being an environmental pressure.
Li teaches a wearable device 600 configured to be worn on the wrist. Li teaches that the wearable device may comprise an internal/external differential pressure sensor ([0073]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the differential pressure sensor to be an internal/external differential pressure sensor and wherein the second pressure is an environmental pressure, as taught by Li ([0073]). This modification merely comprises a simple substitution of one known element (internal/external differential pressure sensor of Li) for another (differential pressure sensor of Lin) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights