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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendments filed on 09/23/2024 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Priority
It is noted that the earlier applications CN202210516562.6, PCT/CN2022099387, and PCT/CN2022109439 does not provide adequate support(s) for the claim limitation “a field effect transistor”. Therefore, the priority date of the limitation is considered as 04/13/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an auxiliary installer, which is configured to install” and “working module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Support structures can at least be found in Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs [0125] and [0128] of the PGPUB.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (USPGPUB 2012/0078071 – applicant cited). In regard to claim 1, Bohm discloses an analyte detection system (Figs. 1-18 and associated descriptions; USPN 7,310,544, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety; [0080]; [0117]; [0146]), comprising: an auxiliary installer (elements 12/14/22, Figs. 1-8 and associated descriptions of ‘544), which is configured to install an analyte detection device on a surface of a user's skin (Figs. 2A-C, 3-6, 10A-C and 15 and associated descriptions; Figs. 9-14 and associated descriptions of ‘544), wherein the analyte detection device at least comprises a transmitter (element 12, Figs. 1-2 and 5A and associated descriptions) and a sensor (element 10, Figs. 1-3, 5A, 10, and 12 and associated descriptions) wherein the transmitter at least comprises a battery (elements 234/312/424/428, Figs. 2A and 3-4 and associated descriptions), a wake-up module (Figs. 3-6 and 9 and associated descriptions), and a working module (elements contained in element 12, Figs. 1-3 and associated descriptions), wherein the wake-up module electrically connects the battery and the working module (Figs. 2A, 3-6 and 9 and associated descriptions), wherein, the wake-up module at least comprises a processor (elements 214/314/514, Figs. 2-3 and 5 and associated descriptions); a state switching component (elements 310/410/520/612/906, Figs. 3-6 and 9 and associated descriptions), and a field-effect transistor (elements 410/426/522, Figs. 4-5 and associated descriptions; [0153]; [0157]; [0166]), wherein, the state switching component is in a first state before triggering, the processor is powered on and in a deep-sleep state (low power/ storage or sleep mode, Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0158]; [0163]; [0166]; [0169]; [0175]), and the field-effect transistor is opened (Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0158]; [0163]; [0166]; [0169]; [0175]), and the battery does not provide electricity to the working module (Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions), the state switching component is in a second state after the state switching component is triggered (measurement mode, Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0158]; [0163]; [0166]; [0169]; [0175]), the processor transitions to a working state (Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0153]; [0157-0158]; [0166]; [0169]) and the field-effect transistor is closed (measurement mode, Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0153]; [0157-0158]; [0166]; [0169]), and the battery provides electrical energy to the working module (measurement mode, Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0153]; [0157-0158]; [0166]; [0169], wherein, after the processor transitions to the working state, the field-effect transistor is locked in a closed circuit to continuously provide electrical energy to the working module by the battery (measurement mode, Figs. 3-6 and associated descriptions; [0153]; [0157-0158]; [0166]; [0169]).
Bohm does not specifically discloses the first state is an open circuit and the second state is a closed circuit.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that switching between states using an open circuit and a closed circuit are circuitry design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration of switching between a first state and a second state using an alternative equivalent configuration of the open circuit and the closed circuit to yield predictable results. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
In regard to claim 2, Bohm as modified discloses the state switching component is one of a light sensing element, a magnetic sensing element, a touch switch, or an acceleration sensor (Figs. 5 and 6 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 3, Bohm as modified discloses the state switching component is a photodiode ([0182]).
In regard to claim 4, Bohm as modified discloses the auxiliary installer is further configured to provide a stable environment for the analyte detection device, preventing the state switching component from being triggered before use (elements 12/14/22, Figs. 1-8 and associated descriptions of ‘544).
In regard to claim 5, Bohm as modified discloses the auxiliary installer provides a light shielding environment for the analyte detection device (elements 12/14/22, Figs. 1-8 and associated descriptions of ‘544; Fig. 6 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 6, Bohm as modified discloses after a separation of the analyte detection device from the auxiliary installer (separation to place the modules to the skin, Figs. 9-14 and associated descriptions of ‘544), the auxiliary installer no longer provides a light shielding environment for the analyte detection device, and the state switching component is triggered (separation of ‘544 and then removing element 612, Fig. 6 and associated descriptions).
In regard to claim 7, Bohm as modified discloses the working module at least comprises an antenna (elements 232/532, Figs. 2A and 5A and associated descriptions; [0094-0095]).
In regard to claim 8, Bohm as modified discloses after the working module is provided with electrical energy, the antenna transmits signals to an outer boundary at a first frequency or first signal strength (elements 232/532, Figs. 2A and 5A and associated descriptions; wireless communication, Fig. 1A and [0094-0095]).
In regard to claim 9, Bohm as modified discloses the sensor is a glucose sensor ([0073-0074]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bruwer et al. (USPGPUB 2023/0389829) teaches a wake-up circuit for a glucose sensor (Figs. 1-2) comprises a battery, and a MOSFET ([0029]) and the wake-up circuit closes the switch to wake-up and transition to an active or high-power mode ([0029]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights