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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the present application with claim 1 being independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, it appears that "includes that" should be changed to --includes an electroencephalogram (EEG) unit that--.
In claim 7, line 6, it appears that "than two" should be changed to --than are the two--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn"):
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a wearable device (device 500 in Figure 5a) comprising:
a sensor unit (electrode unit 510) including a plurality of electrodes which are mounted on the head of a user above the cervical portion (see various electrodes 511-515 mounted on head of user above the neck), and detect electrical signals from the head (electrode portion 510 includes electrodes for detecting an electrical signal from skin (of head per Figure 5a) per middle of page 9 of translation), detecting an electroencephalogram of the user based on a difference between electrical signals detected by two of the plurality of electrodes (the middle of page 10 of the translation discloses detecting a brain wave/EEG output signal based on the potential difference between electrodes 511, 513 (two of the plurality of electrodes)), and detecting an electrocardiogram of the user based on a difference between electrical signals detected by two other electrodes among the plurality of electrodes (the top of page 11 of the translation discloses detecting an electrocardiography signal based on the potential difference between electrodes 512, 514 (two other electrodes among the plurality of electrodes)); and
a control unit electrically connected with the sensor unit, and converts, into digital signals, analog signals of the electroencephalogram and electrocardiogram detected by the sensor unit (the bottom half of page 9 of the translation indicates how the electrodes 511-515 of Figure 5a can correspond to the electrodes 111 in Figure 1, where Figure 1 illustrates various units 150, 160, 170, 180, 190 (collectively a "control unit") electrically connected with the electrodes 111 of the electrode/sensor unit 110 that converts (via ADC unit 170) analog signals of the EEG/ECG into digital signal per page 4 of the translation).
Regarding claim 2, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 1, further including wherein:
the sensor unit includes [an electroencephalographic (EEG) unit] that acquires the electroencephalography (EEG) of the user (EEG acquisition unit 520 in Figure 5 and page 10 of the translation) and an electrocardiogram (ECG) acquisition unit that acquires the electrocardiogram (ECG) of the user (ECG acquisition unit 530 in Figure 5 and page 10 of the translation), and
the plurality of electrodes include an active electrode (electrode 513; even though Figure 5b illustrates this electrode to be "REF2," the Examiner notes that the bottom of page 10 of the translation indicates that electrode 513 is an active electrode), a reference electrode (electrode 511), a ground electrode (electrode 515), and two electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes (electrodes 512, 514).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, further including wherein:
two electrocardiogram electrodes are located in the left region and the right region of the head, respectively (see electrodes 512, 514 in Figure 5a), and
the electrocardiogram (ECG) acquisition unit acquires an electrocardiogram (ECG) based on the difference between the electrical signals detected by two electrocardiogram electrodes, respectively (see top of page 11 of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 1, further including wherein: the sensor unit and the control unit are utilized for monitoring, diagnosing, and predicting central nervous system diseases (pages 2 and 13 of the translation discuss how the EEG/brain wave data (which is obtained via the "sensor unit" and "control unit" as discussed in relation to claim 1) can be used to diagnose/monitor/predict brain diseases such as epilepsy, stroke, brain tumors, and cognitive disorders (CNS diseases)).
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5, 7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0154104 to Gerdes et al. ("Gerdes"):
Regarding claim 3, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, further including wherein:
…
the electroencephalography (EEG) acquisition unit acquires electroencephalography (EEG)s based on the difference between the electrical signal detected by the active electrode and the electrical signal detected by the reference electrode (the middle of page 10 of the translation discloses detecting a brain wave/EEG output signal based on the potential difference between reference electrodes 511 and active electrode 513).
However, Ahn appears to be silent regarding the active electrode includes two frontal lobe electrodes and two temporal lobe electrodes.
Nevertheless, Gerdes teaches (Figure 3B and [0136]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a wearable brain wave monitoring device to include two active frontal lobe electrodes 315, 316 (e.g., FP1, FP2) and two active temporal lobe electrodes 311, 313 or 312, 314 to advantageously allow for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken ([0008], [0061]-[0067], [0137], [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the active electrode of Ahn to include two frontal lobe electrodes and two temporal lobe electrodes as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 4, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, but appears to be silent regarding wherein:
the active electrode includes a first active electrode having two frontal lobe electrodes, and a second active electrode having two temporal lobe electrodes, and
when the head of the user is divided into left and right regions, a measurement position of each of the first active electrode and the second active electrode belongs to at least one of the left area and the right area.
Nevertheless, Gerdes teaches (Figure 3B and [0136]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a wearable brain wave monitoring device to include two active frontal lobe electrodes 315, 316 (e.g., FP1, FP2) (which collectively amount to a pair corresponding lobe channels per [0026] or in other words a "first active electrode") and two active temporal lobe electrodes 311, 313 or 312, 314 (which collectively amount to another pair corresponding lobe channels per [0026] or in other words a "second active electrode"), where a measurement portion of each of the first and second active electrodes (e.g., the electrodes 315, 316 for the "first active electrode" or the electrodes 311, 313 or 312, 314 for the "second active electrode") belongs to the left or right area of the user's head (e.g., see discussion of left and right lobe channels which corresponding to left and right areas of a user's head per [0009] and [0025]-[0026]). This arrangement advantageously allows for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken ([0008], [0061]-[0067], [0137], [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the active electrode of Ahn to include a first active electrode having two frontal lobe electrodes, and a second active electrode having two temporal lobe electrodes, and when the head of the user is divided into left and right regions, a measurement position of each of the first active electrode and the second active electrode belongs to at least one of the left area and the right area, all as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 5, the Ahn/Gerdes combination discloses the wearable device of claim 4, further including wherein:
the electroencephalography (EEG) acquisition unit acquires electroencephalography (EEG)s (brain wave acquisition unit 520 of Ahn obtains brain waves/EEGs) of a left brain or a right brain or both brains (Figure 5a of Ahn discloses obtaining brain wave signal of the left and/or right brain) for the frontal lobe based on the difference between the electrical signal detected by the first active electrode and the electrical signal detected by the reference electrode ([0136] of Gerdes discloses obtaining differential measurements between the FP1/FP2 electrodes ("first active electrode") and a reference channel), and acquires electroencephalography (EEG)s of the left brain or the right brain or both brains (Figure 5a of Ahn discloses obtaining brain wave signal of the left and/or right brain) for the temporal lobe based on the difference between the electrical signal detected by the second active electrode and the electrical signal detected by the reference electrode ([0136] of Gerdes discloses obtaining differential measurements between the T3/T4 electrodes ("second active electrode") and the reference channel; similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the EEGs of Ahn to be obtained for the frontal lobe based on the difference between the electrical signal detected by the first active electrode and the electrical signal detected by the reference electrode and for the temporal lobe based on the difference between the electrical signal detected by the second active electrode and the electrical signal detected by the reference electrode similar to as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 7, the Ahn/Gerdes combination discloses the wearable device of claim 3, further including, wherein:
two frontal lobe electrodes are located at either positions Fpl and Fp2 or positions F7 and F8 ([0136] of Gerdes),
two temporal lobe electrodes are located at either positions T3 and T4 or positions T5 and T6 ([0136] of Gerdes), and
the reference electrode is located closer to the ground than two temporal lobe electrodes (the reference electrode 318 of Gerdes would be located closer to the ground than are the two temporal lobe electrodes 311/313 or 312/314 when position on a user's head),
with a central axis of the head being perpendicular to the ground (a central axis of the user's head would be perpendicular to the ground when the user is standing upright in Ahn and Gerdes; similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the two frontal lobe electrodes to be located at positions Fpl and Fp2, two temporal lobe electrodes to be located at positions T3 and T4, and the reference electrode to be located closer to the ground than two temporal lobe electrodes, with a central axis of the head being perpendicular to the ground as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow for the detection of electrical activation asymmetries in different regions of the brain corresponding to stress states and thereby allow for corrective actions to be taken. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the electrodes such that the reference electrode is located closer to the ground than two temporal lobe electrodes because it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, further including wherein:
the control unit includes a filter unit filtering an output signal of the sensor unit (filtering unit 160 in Figure 1), an analog-to-digital conversion unit converting a filtered analog output signal into a digital signal (ADC 170), and a communication unit transmitting the converted digital signal (communication unit 190 transmits digitized EEG output signals to the outside per the bottom of page 4 to the top of page 5 of the translation)…
However, Ahn appears to be silent regarding the communication unit specifically transmitting the converted digital signal to a mobile device.
Nevertheless, Gerdes teaches (Figure 2A and [0107]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a wearable brain wave monitoring device 210 to include a sensor unit having a plurality of electrodes/sensors 211-215, an ADC converter 229, a controller 230, and a Bluetooth transceiver/communication unit 240 for transmitting digitized signals to a phone/tablet/mobile device to advantageously allow such mobile device to execute a brain wave asymmetry determination computer program ([0059]) to allow for identification of condition states (e.g., stress) and ultimately rebalancing of a user's brain ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the converted digital signal of Ahn to a mobile device as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow such mobile device to execute a brain wave asymmetry determination and/or other computer program to allow for identification of condition states (e.g., stress) and ultimately rebalancing of a user's brain. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 13, the Ahn/Gerdes combination discloses the wearable device of claim 11, further including:
a power supply supplying the power to the sensor and the control unit (because the wearable device 500 of Ahn is an electrical device including an electrodes, ADC converter 170, control unit 160, etc., it necessarily includes some power supply supplying power to the sensor and control unit),
wherein the communication unit is a wireless communication unit (bottom of page 4 of the translation of Ahn) including at least one of Bluetooth, WiFi, 4th generation mobile communication, and 5th generation mobile communication ([0107] of Gerdes discloses use of Bluetooth link/transceiver 240 to transmit data to phone/mobile device), and
the control unit is connected to the mobile device through the wireless communication unit (the control unit 1560/160/170/180 of Ahn is connected to the outside (which is a mobile device per the above combination with Gerdes) via the wireless communication unit 190 per Figure 1 and the bottom of page 4 to the top of page 5 of the translation of Ahn; similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the converted digital signal of Ahn to a mobile device as taught by Gerdes to advantageously allow such mobile device to execute a brain wave asymmetry determination and/or other computer program to allow for identification of condition states (e.g., stress) and ultimately rebalancing of a user's brain. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wireless communication of Ahn to specifically incorporate Bluetooth communication as taught by Gerdes as doing so is a common manner of communication between electronic devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0263468 to Lynch ("Lynch"):
Regarding claim 8, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, but appears to be silent regarding wherein:
the plurality of electrodes are composed of hydrogel electrodes.
Nevertheless, Lynch teaches ([0010], [0057]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to utilize hydrogel electrodes for ECG and EEG application as such electrodes are typical in clinical use to facilitate adherence to the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of electrodes of Ahn to be composed of hydrogel electrodes as taught by Lynch as such electrodes are typical in clinical use to facilitate adherence to the body. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0135640 to Gunasekar et al. ("Gunasekar"):
Regarding 9, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, but appears to be silent regarding wherein:
the sensor unit further includes an acceleration sensor, and an acceleration acquisition unit measuring 3-axis position information according to the user's movement using the acceleration sensor.
Nevertheless, Gunesakar teaches ([0089]-[0091]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for an EEG headset to include an accelerometer and for a controller ("acceleration acquisition unit") to assess/measure x/y/z (three-axis) position information according to movement of the user using the accelerometer to advantageously identify instances of excess motion that might negative affect testing and send corresponding alerts to test administrators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensor unit of Ahn to further include an acceleration sensor, and an acceleration acquisition unit measuring 3-axis position information according to the user's movement using the acceleration sensor as taught by Gunesakar to advantageously identify instances of excess motion that might negative affect testing and send corresponding alerts to test administrators. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0223747 to Chou ("Chou"):
Regarding 10, Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, further including wherein:
the sensor unit includes a first electrode support (Figure 5a illustrates a first electrode support (e.g., housing in left image/side of person's head), and a second electrode support extended from the first electrode support toward the user's forehead (Figure 5a illustrates a second electrode support (e.g., housing in right image/side of person's head) that extends from the first electrode support around the back of the person's head and towards the person's forehead),
the plurality of electrodes are mounted on the first electrode support and the second electrode support (see Figure 5a), and
…
However, Ahn appears to be silent regarding the first electrode support and the second electrode support being made of a flexible material.
Nevertheless, Chou teaches ([0014]-[0015], [0114], [0247]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a head-worn EEG measuring device to include a frame and/or electrode contact position (electrode supports) made of a flexible material to advantageously enhance electrode stability and provide greater user comfort.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first electrode support and the second electrode support of Ahn to be made of a flexible material similar to as taught by Chou to advantageously enhance electrode stability and provide greater user comfort. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20190001081-A to Ahn et al. ("Ahn") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0279952 to Orron et al. ("Orron"):
Regarding claim 11 Ahn discloses the wearable device of claim 2, further including wherein:
the control unit includes a filter unit filtering an output signal of the sensor unit (filtering unit 160 in Figure 1), an analog-to-digital conversion unit converting a filtered analog output signal into a digital signal (ADC 170), and a communication unit transmitting the converted digital signal (communication unit 190 transmits digitized EEG output signals to the outside per the bottom of page 4 to the top of page 5 of the translation)…
However, Ahn appears to be silent regarding the communication unit specifically transmitting the converted digital signal to a mobile device.
Nevertheless, Orron teaches ([0001]-[0006]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a wearable physiological monitor to collect physiological data and transmit the data to a mobile device/smartphone for analysis thereby to display results to users for understanding of their physiological information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have transmitted the converted digital signal of Ahn to a mobile device as taught by Orron to advantageously display results to users for understanding of their physiological information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 12, the Ahn/Orron combination disclose the wearable device of claim 11, further including wherein:
the sensor unit is connected to the control unit through a connection line (because the wearable device of Figures 1 and 5 of Ahn is an electronic device, there is necessarily some conductive "connection line" (e.g., trace, etc.) connecting the "sensor unit" to the "control unit"),
the control unit is connected to the mobile device through a wired connection unit ([0001] and [0071]-[0074] of Orron discuss how the wearable device (which includes a control unit 28 per Figure 1) transmits physiological signals to the mobile device via a wired connection), and
the sensor unit and the control unit receive power from the mobile device ([0071]-[0074] of Orron discloses how the wearable device (and thus its control unit 28 and sensors per [0078]) receive power from the mobile device; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control unit of Ahn to be connected to the mobile device through a wired connection unit as taught by Orron as doing so is a common manner (e.g., along with wireless connection) of communicating in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensor unit and control unit of Ahn to receive power from the mobile device as taught by Orron to provide an efficient and effective manner of providing power to the wearable device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on the attached PTO-892 disclose various wearable systems for measuring physiological signals (e.g., EEG, ECG, etc.) of users and analyzing the same for use in diagnosing medical disorders and planning treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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 Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights