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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter which was not described in the original disclosure is the step or function of receiving from the graphical user interface a quality tolerance for the physiological signal input by the user, in combination with the other elements, steps, and/or functions in the claim(s).
The original disclosure in paragraph 23 stated the quality tolerance could be a predefined value or a mathematical function. One way the system may contain the quality tolerance is being “set by the user”. However, the disclosure does not disclose specifically the method step or function of receiving the quality tolerance through a graphical user interface input by the user. There are numerous ways the quality tolerance could be “set by the user”, such as pre-loading/programming the tolerance into the system, downloading it through the network, getting it by a flash drive, etc.
In addition, the subject matter which was not described in the original disclosure is the quality tolerance being a probability threshold based on a distribution of a plurality of “the physiological signals” (e.g. claim 1, line 43, etc.) from the sensor, in combination with the other elements, steps, and/or functions in the claim(s).
The original disclosure in paragraph 23 stated “the quality tolerance 144 may be a probability threshold based on a normal distribution, a uniform distribution, an exponential distribution, a binomial distribution, and the like”, but did not discuss the quality tolerance being from the sensor sensing the physiological signal that is used to determine if the sensed signal is within the quality tolerance. The disclosure did not discuss the now amended claims of using the sensor sensing a physiological signal, then those sensor physiological signals being used by the quality tolerance as a probability threshold based on distribution of a plurality of the sensor sensed physiological signals.
It is unclear how the sensor sensors physiological signals, that are then used for the quality tolerance set by a user with a graphical user interface, then using the quality tolerance to determine a quality tolerance of the sensed physiological signal.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 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.
In claim 1, line 34, “the signal characteristic profile” lacks antecedent basis. In line 43, “a plurality of the physiological signals” is vague as claim 1, line 3 has the sensor sensing “a” physiological signal and not a plurality. It is suggested to set forth in line 3 that the sensor is used to sense a plurality of physiological signals if line 43 is referencing the plurality of signals of line 3.
In claim 8, “the signal characteristic model” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, the next to last paragraph, “a plurality of the physiological signals” is vague as claim 11, line 3 has the sensor sensing “a” physiological signal and not a plurality.
In claim 18, “the signal characteristic model” lacks antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on 571-270-5213. 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.
/George R Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 4/3/26
Prosecution Insights