DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 14 January 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the sweat rate sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
4. Claims 1, 5-13, and 29-31 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11-15 of Application No. 18/725,532. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Although not exhaustive, a brief matching of the claims of Application No. 18/725,537 to the claims of Application No. 18/725,532 is provided below.
Application No. 18/725,537
Application No. 18/725,532
1
1, 12
5
11
6
13-14
7
9
8
14
9
14
10
14
11
1, 3, 4
12
5, 9
13
6
29
13
30
14
31
1, 15
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 5-13, and 29-31 are not in condition for allowance based on the double patenting rejection above.
Claim 18 is not in condition for allowance based upon the 112 (b) rejection above.
Claims 5-19 and 29-32 are also objected, as claims 5-19 and 29-32 depend upon the claim 1 which was rejected based on double patenting.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has provided an explanation below that describes how the prior art of record fails to suggest the corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 1, Raj (US 2020/0397315 A1) teaches wearable device for continuous monitoring of health parameters of a user (the wearable electronics-enabled microfluidics sensor (EEMS) system 50 [0036, 0049-0050]), the device comprising:
at least one sweat sensor for measuring a sweat biomarker (the wearable electronics-enabled microfluidics sensor system 50 comprises a sweat sensing device 52 that includes a sweat sensor 70 for measuring a sweat biomarker [0036, 0049-0050, 0063, 0065]), a sweat collection inlet arranged in the device for collecting sweat when the device is worn by a user (the sweat sensing device 52 of the wearable electronics-enabled microfluidics sensor system 50 comprises an inlet port for collecting sweat [0063, 0065]), a microfluidic channel for conveying collected sweat from the inlet to the sweat sensor (the microfluidic channel 26 is configured to convey the sweat from inlet port to the sweat sensor 70 [0065]), at least one vital-sign sensor arranged in the device for measuring a vital-sign or physiological sign of the user (the wearable electronics-enabled microfluidics sensor (EEMS) system 50 may integrate body-worn sensors to detect physiological information (e.g., heart rate) [0041-0042, 0069]), a sweat volume sensor for measuring volume of the collected sweat ([0014, 0076, 0082]), and a processing unit adapted for receiving and processing data provided by the sweat biomarker sensor, the vital-sign biosensor and the sweat volume sensor (the processor is configured to receive the data collected by the physiological and/or biological data collected by the sensors (e.g., sweat volume, heart rate, sweat biomarker) [0036, 0041, 0067, 0076]);
wherein the vital-sign sensor comprises at least a heart rate sensor ([0041-0042, 0069]);
wherein the sweat biomarker sensor is a sweat lactate sensor ([0081]); and
Raj does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is further adapted to calculate a blood lactate concentration based on data provided by: the sweat lactate sensor, the sweat volume sensor, and the heart rate sensor. The Examiner respectfully submits that Raj teaches the processor to utilize physiological data (e.g., sweat volume measurements and heart rate measurements) to further derive or calculate a lactate concentration of sweat ([0036, 0041-0042, 0076, 0081]). However, Raj does not explicitly teach the processor to utilize a combination of the sweat measurements (e.g., sweat volume and sweat lactate) and heart rate measurements to further calculate a blood lactate concentration.
The prior art by Javey (US 2018/0263539 A1) is analogous to Raj, as they both teach a wearable device comprising sweat sensors ([abstract, 0008]).
Javey teaches wherein the processing unit is further adapted to calculate a blood lactate concentration based on data provided by: the sweat lactate sensor and the sweat volume sensor (the wearable sensing platform may measure sweat and sweat lactate to provide a non-invasive way for blood lactate monitoring [abstract, 0046, 0048]).
However, Javey does not explicitly teach the blood lactate concentration to be calculated based on a combination of the sweat lactate sensor, the sweat volume sensor, and the heart rate sensor.
The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claims 5-19 and 29-32 are considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claims 5-19 and 29-32 depend upon claim 1.
Statement on Communication via Internet
6. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights