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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term "the sensor an electronic electrolyte sensor" should read "the sensor is an electronic electrolyte sensor". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim refers to a "computer readable media" where the scope of the claim encompasses both statutory and non-statutory mediums.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deo et al, US Patent Pub US 20130304265 A1 (hereinafter Deo) in view of Huynh et al, US Patent Pub US 20210005322 A1 (hereinafter Huynh).
Claim 1
Deo teaches a method for dispensing a personalized beverage mixture (Deo, para 9, claim 13 – Dispensing a customized/personalized beverage from a beverage dispenser.), the method comprising: receiving a measurement of an amount of electrolytes lost by the user through sweat (Deo, para 73, 75 - Physiological data indicates that a user has lost a level of electrolytes.); generating a recipe for the personalized beverage mixture based on the measured amount of electrolytes lost by the user, the recipe comprising a second volume of fluid to replenish at least a portion of the fluid lost by the user and an amount of electrolyte additive to replenish at least a portion of the measured amount of electrolytes lost by the user (Deo, para 21, 75 – Generating a recipe for a customized/personalized beverage to replenish fluid lost and an amount of electrolytes to replenish lost electrolytes of the user.); and dispensing the personalized beverage mixture according to the recipe. (Deo, para 78 - The dispensing of the customized/personalized beverage.)
But Deo fails to specify receiving a predicted volume of fluid lost by a user through sweat based on activity data indicating a type of activity performed and one or more parameters for the activity; generating a recipe for the personalized beverage mixture based on the predicted volume of fluid, and a second volume of fluid to replenish at least a portion of the predicted volume of fluid lost by the user.
However Huynh teaches receiving a predicted volume of fluid lost by a user through sweat based on activity data indicating a type of activity performed and one or more parameters for the activity (Huynh, para 18, 39 - Sweat rate of exertion driven fluid volume based on biological measurements and degree of exertion, based on activity and/or standard rating of perceived exertion scales to predict an individual's fluid and sodium replacement requirements.); generating a recipe for the personalized beverage mixture based on the predicted volume of fluid, and a second volume of fluid to replenish at least a portion of the predicted volume of fluid lost by the user. (Huynh, para 39-40 - Providing advice to the human subject regarding a volume/”second volume” and a composition/recipe of fluids required for recovery based on the fluid lost.)
Deo and Huynh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to personalized hydration systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above personalized hydration system, as taught by Deo, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Huynh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to quantify the volume of fluid and electrolytes that need to be replenished following dehydration by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Huynh (para 8).
This rejection also applies to claims 11 and 20.
Claim 2
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches the one or more activity parameters include at least one of a duration of the activity, an activity intensity, or ambient environmental conditions. (Deo, para 70-73 – Activity data/parameter including the time/duration a user undertakes a specific activity, estimating user muscle usage/intensity, or ambient environmental data.)
This rejection also applies to claim 12.
Claim 3
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches the activity data is provided as a user input to a user device operated by the user or is automatically collected by the user device as the user performs the activity. (Deo, para 66 – Activity data may be entered by a user or automatically collected.)
This rejection also applies to claim 13.
Claim 4
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches physical parameters for the user including at least one of a height or a weight of the user, wherein the amount of electrolytes lost by the user is determined based further on the height or the weight of the user. (Deo, para 70-71 – Physical parameters including height and weight used in determining electrolyte loss.)
This rejection also applies to claim 19.
Claim 5
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches the measurement of the amount of electrolytes lost by the user through is collected by a sensor positioned on the skin of the user. (Deo, para 69-70 – Biosensors worn/”positioned on the skin” by the user that measure the amount of electrolyte loss.)
This rejection also applies to claims 14-15.
Claim 7
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches the sensor is an electronic electrolyte sensor configured to wirelessly transmit or visually display an indication of the amount of electrolytes lost. (Deo, para 67 – Wireless transmission by a wireless device measuring/”electronic electrolyte sensor” the amount of electrolyte loss.)
Claim 8
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches displaying, via a user interface, an indication of the volume of fluid for the personalized beverage mixture. (Deo, para 54, 62 – Visual indication on a user interface of the level/volume of fluid for the customized/personalized beverage.)
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 10
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Deo and Huynh further teaches receiving a user input indicating at least one of a flavor or a sweetener to add to the fluid, wherein the recipe for the personalized beverage mixture further includes an amount of the flavor or the sweetener. (Deo, para 54-55 – Adjusting flavor and sweetener levels to add to the customized/personalized beverage based on user input.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deo et al, US Patent Pub US 20130304265 A1 (hereinafter Deo) in view of Huynh et al, US Patent Pub US 20210005322 A1 (hereinafter Huynh) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20 above, in further view of Mishra et al, US Patent Pub US 20210290156 A1 (hereinafter Mishra).
Claim 6
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Deo and Huynh fails to specify the sensor is a chemical electrolyte sensor configured to display a visual indicator of the amount of electrolytes lost.
However Mishra further teaches the sensor is a chemical electrolyte sensor configured to display a visual indicator of the amount of electrolytes lost. (Mishra, para 118, 120, 122-123 – An electrochemical sensor measuring electrolytes that displays the amount of electrolyte loss.)
Deo, Huynh, and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to bodily fluid analysis systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above bodily fluid analysis system, as taught by Deo and Huynh, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Mishra.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to quantify the volume of fluid and electrolytes that need to be replenished following dehydration by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Mishra (para 8).
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deo et al, US Patent Pub US 20130304265 A1 (hereinafter Deo) in view of Huynh et al, US Patent Pub US 20210005322 A1 (hereinafter Huynh) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20 above, in further view of Jones et al, US Patent Num US 10980491 B1 (hereinafter Jones).
Claim 9
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Deo and Huynh fails to specify displaying, via the user interface, an indication of a dehydration risk for the user.
However Jones teaches displaying, via the user interface, an indication of a dehydration risk for the user. (Jones, Col 5, line 47 – Col 6 line 8, Col 29, lines 19-49 – Displaying on an interface the hydration condition/”dehydration risk” for an individual.)
Deo, Huynh, and Jones are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to bodily fluid analysis systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above bodily fluid analysis system, as taught by Deo and Huynh, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Jones.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determine an abnormal change in the hydration level of the individual that indicates dehydration by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Jones (Abstract).
This rejection also applies to claim 18.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deo et al, US Patent Pub US 20130304265 A1 (hereinafter Deo) in view of Huynh et al, US Patent Pub US 20210005322 A1 (hereinafter Huynh) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20 above, in further view of Barton-Sweeney, US Patent Pub US 20190307431 A1 (hereinafter Sweeney).
Claim 16
The combination of Deo and Huynh teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Deo and Huynh fails to specify a face of the wearable device is scanned using a camera of a user device operated by the user to determine the measurement of electrolyte loss.
However Sweeney teaches a face of the wearable device is scanned using a camera of a user device operated by the user to determine the measurement of electrolyte loss. (Sweeney, para 114, 148 - A camera may be used to acquire an image of the device and the electrolyte value determined via colorimetric analysis.)
Deo, Huynh, and Sweeney are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to bodily fluid analysis systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above bodily fluid analysis system, as taught by Deo and Huynh, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Sweeney.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determines the physical condition of the user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Sweeney (Abstract).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deo et al, US Patent Pub US 20190146641 A1 relates to claims regarding custom beverage creation based on fluid loss and the rate or amount of electrolyte loss.
Heikenfeld, US Patent Pub US 20180340903 A1 relates to claims regarding a wearable sweat sensing device configured to be placed on a wearer's skin.
Iuele et al, US Patent Pub US 20170086715 A1 relates to claims regarding a biosensor for sensing analytes in a fluid including electrolytes.
Vanassche et al, US Patent Pub US 20200247659 A1 relates to claims regarding a beverage dispensing system for providing a personalized sports drink with one or more additives based on biometric data.
Reiff et al, US Patent Pub US 20180035940 A1 relates to claims regarding a sweat testing system, excretion rate or sweat rate, and weight or volume of fluid including sweat and electrolytes that are excreted or otherwise lost by a user during a historical testing period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights