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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “each sector piece” should read “each sensor piece.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 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.
In Claim 9, the claim limitation “bolt structures” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear how the bolt structures are defined. Is a bolt structure a securing point? Or is it a bolt? For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as an element that secures the sensor piece to the frame.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20080262327 A1) in view of Kincaid et al. (US 20200054378 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses a sensor suspension system (Figures 91A-D and 92A-D; Paragraphs 0647-0650), comprising:
a plurality of sensor holders (retaining ring – element 28; Figures 91A-D and 92A-D; Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, there are a plurality of retaining rings (28) along the support frame (29), where each retaining ring holds a probe (1).]) comprising a channel attachment (protrusions – element 28a; Paragraph 0648) at a proximal end of a support arm (Paragraph 0648) and a sensor frame (Paragraph 0649) at a distal end of the support arm (Paragraph 0648; Figures 91B-C; [Examiner’s note, the probe (1) extends to the distal end of the retaining ring (28)), the sensor frame configured to support at least one sensor (Paragraphs 0647-0650); and
a support frame (living body probe support device – element 30) comprising channels distributed about the support frame (ring support frame – element 29), the channel attachment of each of the plurality of sensor holders configured to engage with the channels to support that sensor holder from the support frame (Figures 92A-D; Paragraphs 0648-0650; [Examiner’s note, the living body probe support device (30) contains a plurality of ring support frame (29). Within each ring support frame, like Figs. 92C-D, there are a plurality of retaining rings (28), wherein each retaining ring holds a probe (1).]), where positioning of each sensor holder is adjustable about the support frame by the channel attachment within the channels of the support frame (Paragraphs 0648-0650).
Kato is silent in teaching the adjusting is conducted by a sliding functionality. Kincaid teaches a sliding function (Kincaid | Paragraphs 0013 and 0130). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kato to incorporate the teachings of a sliding function because the adjustable sliding mechanism securely holds various medical tools (Kincaid | Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 2, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the channels is distributed about at least a perimeter of the support frame (Kato | Figure 92A-B; Paragraph 0648).
Regarding Claim 3, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the channels are distributed along spokes of the support frame (Kato | Figure 92A-B; Paragraphs 0648-0650; [Examiner’s note, ring support frame (29) is distributed along the perimeter of the support frame (30).]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 2, wherein the perimeter is an outer ring comprising a continuous channel extending around the outer ring (Kato | Figures 92A-B Paragraphs 0648-0650).
Regarding Claim 5, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 4, wherein the outer ring comprises one or more opening in the outer ring (Kato | Figures 91-92; Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, the inner ring is element 29, and there are multiple openings within the inner ring as shown in figures 91-92.]), the one or more opening extending through the outer ring to the continuous channel (Kato | Figures 91C-D; Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, the plurality of indentations (29a) is opening extending through the outer ring.]), the one or more opening providing visual access to the channel attachment of a sensor holder (Kato | retaining rings – element 28) engaged with the continuous channel (Kato | Figures 91A-D and 92A; Paragraphs 0647-0650).
Regarding Claim 6, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 4, wherein the support frame comprises spokes extending from a central mounting structure to the outer ring (Kato | Figure 92A; Paragraphs 0648-0650; [Examiner’s note, the inner support frame (29) is distributed along spokes extending to and around the circumferential perimeter of support frame (30).]), the spokes comprising radial channels extending along a length of the spoke to the continuous channel around the outer ring (Kato | Figure 92A; Paragraphs 0648-0650).
Regarding Claim 7, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 6, wherein the spokes (Kato | retaining ring – element 28) comprise an opening extending through the spoke to the radial channel (Kato | Figure 91A, C, D and 91A-B), the opening providing visual access to the channel attachment of a sensor holder engaged with the radial channel (Kato | Figures 91C-D and 92A; Paragraphs 0648-0650).
Regarding Claim 8, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 6, wherein the support frame comprises a plurality of sector pieces, each sensor piece comprising at least one spoke and a portion of the outer ring (Kato | Figures 91 and 92; Paragraphs 0648-0650).
Regarding Claim 9, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 8, wherein adjacent sector pieces are coupled together via bolt structures (Kato | protrusions – element 28a; [Examiner’s note, the protrusions (28a) along the retaining rings (28) are used to secure the retaining rings (28) to the inner support frame (29).]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 6, wherein the support frame is supported by the central mounting structure (Kato | connecting part – element 60a; Paragraph 0650; Figures 92A-B).
Regarding Claim 11, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1. Kato teaches wherein the channel attachment configured for insertion and movement within the channels (Kato | Paragraphs 0648-0650). Kato is silent in teaching a sliding block. Kincaid teaches a sliding block (Kincaid | Paragraphs 0013 and 0130). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kato to incorporate the teachings of a sliding function because the adjustable sliding mechanism securely holds various medical tools (Kincaid | Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 12, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein the sensor frame is substantially parallel to the support arm (Kato | retaining rings – element 28; [Examiner’s note, as stated within the 35 U.S.C 112b rejection, the sensor frame and the support arm are the same element]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein the sensor frame (Kato | retaining rings – element 28) is configured to support a sensor (Kato | Paragraph 0648).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kincaid and de Goeij et al. (US 20220152340 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 13, wherein the support frame holds a sensor (Kato | Paragraph 0648). Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in teaching the sensor is a CO2 sensor. de Goeij teaches a CO--2 sensor (de Goeji | CO2 sensor – element 310). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sensor from Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of a CO2 from de Goeij because the sensor monitors and accurately measures the CO2 exhaled from the user (de Goeij | Paragraph 0061).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kincaid and Machijima et al. (US 20130263733 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensor holders and support frame are made from the same material (Kato | Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, the sensor holders and support frame are made out of a deformable material.]). Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in teaching the material is transparent. Machijima teaches a transparent material (Machijima | Paragraph 0085). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to substitute the deformable material of Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of a transparent material from Machijima because the transparent synthetic resin material allows the operator to view the sensor within the sensor holder (Machijima | Paragraph 0085).
Regarding Claim 16, Kato in view of Kincaid teaches the sensor suspension system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensor holders and support frame are made from the same material (Kato | Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, the sensor holders and support frame are made out of a deformable material.]). However, Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in teaching the material is fabricated from a resin. Machijima teaches a resin material (Machijima | Paragraph 0085). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to substitute the deformable material of Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of a resin material from Machijima because the transparent synthetic resin material allows the operator to view the sensor within the sensor holder (Machijima | Paragraph 0085).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi et al (US 20200138292 A1), and de Goeij et al. (US 20220152340 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kato discloses a method (Paragraph 0002), comprising: the sensor suspension system (Figures 91A-D and 92A-D; Paragraphs 0647-0650) comprising:
a plurality of sensor holders (retaining ring – element 28; Figures 91A-D and 92A-D; Paragraph 0648; [Examiner’s note, there are a plurality of retaining rings (28) along the support frame (29), where each retaining ring holds a probe (1).]) comprising a channel attachment (protrusions – element 28a; Paragraph 0648) at a proximal end of a support arm (Paragraph 0648) and a sensor frame (Paragraph 0649) at a distal end of the support arm (Paragraph 0648; Figures 91B-C; [Examiner’s note, the probe (1) extends to the distal end of the retaining ring (28)), the sensor frame configured to support at least one sensor (Paragraphs 0647-0650); and
a support frame (living body probe support device – element 30) comprising channels distributed about the support frame (ring support frame – element 29), the channel attachment of each of the plurality of sensor holders configured to engage with the channels to support that sensor holder from the support frame (Figures 92A-D; Paragraphs 0648-0650; [Examiner’s note, the living body probe support device (30) contains a plurality of ring support frame (29). Within each ring support frame, like Figs. 92C-D, there are a plurality of retaining rings (28), wherein each retaining ring holds a probe (1).]), where positioning of each sensor holder is adjustable about the support frame by the channel attachment within the channels of the support frame (Paragraphs 0648-0650) one or more sensor supported by the plurality of sensor holders (retaining ring – element 28; Figures 91A-D and 92A-D; Paragraph 0648).
Kato is silent in teaching the adjusting is conducted by a sliding functionality. Kincaid teaches a sliding function (Kincaid | Paragraphs 0013 and 0130). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Kato to incorporate the teachings of a sliding function because the adjustable sliding mechanism securely holds various medical tools (Kincaid | Paragraph 0013).
Kato in view of Kincaid teaches of the system that contains a sensor holder which holds a sensor. However, Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in adjusting positioning of the system. Additionally, Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in teaching positioning a sensor suspension system over a face of a subject; adjusting positioning of the system; and obtaining concentration readings from sensors supported by the sensor suspension system. Choi teaches adjusting positioning of the system (Paragraphs 0066 and 0138); and obtaining concentration readings from sensors supported by the sensor suspension system (Choi | Paragraphs 0091 and 123). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of positioning, adjusting, and obtaining the data from the sensor suspension system of Choi because adjusting the sensor suspension system allows for the accurate collection of a user's CO2 concentration, which is used for correctly diagnosing lung diseases (Choi | Paragraph 0058).
Kato in view of Kincaid and Choi are silent in teaching the sensor is a CO2 sensor, system over the subject’s face, positing the system over the subject’s face, and the one or more CO2 sensor located at a distance of less than 20 cm from the subject's face. de Goeij teaches a CO2 sensor (de Goeji | CO2 sensor – element 310), positioning the system over the subject’s face (de Goeij | Paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0106), and the one or more CO2 sensor located at a distance of less than 20 cm from the subject's face (de Goeij | Paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0106). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of a CO2 placed at a set distance away from the user’s face from de Goeij because the sensor monitors and accurately measures the CO2 exhaled from the user (de Goeij | Paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 20, Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and de Goeij teaches the method of claim 17. Kato in view of Kincaid and Choi are silent in teaching wherein the one or more CO2 sensor is located at a distance of about 15 cm or less from the subject's face. de Goeij teaches wherein the one or more CO2 sensor is located at a distance of about 15 cm or less from the subject's face (de Goeij | Paragraphs 0059, 0066, 0106). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of a CO2 placed at a set distance away from the user’s face from de Goeij because the sensor monitors and accurately measures the CO2 exhaled from the user (de Goeij | Paragraph 0061).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, de Goeij, Höskuldsson et al. (US 20190274586 A1), and Fries et al. (US 20200370418 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and de Goeij teaches the method of claim 17.
Kato in view of Kincaid is silent in teaching comprising correlating sequences of CO2 concentration readings with sleep stages identified with polysomnography; training a dynamic data wrapping (DTW) model based upon the correlated sequences of CO2 concentration readings; and identifying a sleep stage of a subsequent sequence of CO2 concentration readings using the trained DTW model.
Choi teaches comprising correlating sequences of CO2 concentration readings (Choi | Paragraph 0059); training a model based upon the correlated sequences of CO2 concentration readings, and using the trained model (Choi | Abstract; [Examiner’s note, the integrated multimodal system continuously monitors, stores, and analyzes multiple dynamic data streams in a manner which effectively trains a model.]). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid to incorporate the teachings of polysomnography and dynamic data wrapping (DTW) in correlation to CO2 concentrations from Choi because the dynamic data wrapping allows for real-time continuously monitors, stores, and analyzes multiple dynamic data streams to correlate the user’s symptoms with relation pulmonary diseases (Choi | Paragraph 0065).
Kato in view of Kincaid and Choi are silent in teaching correlating CO2 with sleep stages, and identifying a sleep stage of a subsequent sequence of CO2 concentration readings. de Goeij teaches correlating CO2 with sleep stages (de Goeij | Paragraphs 0068, 0078, and 0267-0268), and identifying a sleep stage of a subsequent sequence of CO2 concentration readings (de Goeij | Paragraphs 0061, 0068, 0078, and 0267-0268). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid and Choi to incorporate the teachings of correlating CO2 concentrations with sleep stages from de Goeij because Correlating the user's carbon dioxide concentration with their sleep stage helps determine sleep quality and provides ways to improve it (de Goeij | Paragraph 0078).
Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and de Goeij are silent in teaching a correlating sequences of CO2 concentration readings with sleep stages identified with polysomnography. Höskuldsson teaches a correlating sequences of CO2 concentration readings with sleep stages identified with polysomnography (Höskuldsson | Paragraphs 0014-0016; Figures 2-3). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and de Goeij to incorporate the teachings of using a polysomnography to correlate the CO2 concentration with sleep stages because the data from the polysomnography can help diagnose a patient who is suffering from Obstructive Sleep Disordered Breathing (OSDB) (Höskuldsson | Paragraphs 0014-0019).
Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, de Goeij, and Höskuldsson are silent in teaching the model is a dynamic data wrapping (DTW). Fries teaches a dynamic data wrapping (DTW) (Fries | Figure 4; Paragraph 0049). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, de Goeij, and Höskuldsson to incorporate the teachings of dynamic data wrapping from Fries because it allows for an algorithm used to measure similarity between two data sequences that vary in speed or time (Fries | Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 19, Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, de Goeij, Höskuldsson, and Fries teaches the method of claim 18. Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and Höskuldsson, is silent in teaching wherein training of the DTW model is based upon patterns extracted from the correlated sequences of CO2 concentration readings using a shapelet transformation.
de Goeij teaches CO2 concentration readings through a CO2 sensor (de Goeji | CO2 sensor – element 310). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, and Höskuldsson to incorporate the teachings of a CO2 concentration readings through a CO2 sensor de Goeij because the sensor monitors and accurately measures the CO2 exhaled from the user (de Goeij | Paragraph 0061).
Fries teaches training of the DTW model is based upon patterns extracted from the correlated sequences of data readings using a shapelet transformation (Fries | Figure 4; Paragraph 0049). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the method from Kato in view of Kincaid, Choi, de Goeij, and Höskuldsson to incorporate the teachings of dynamic data wrapping from Fries because it allows for an algorithm used to measure similarity between two data sequences that vary in speed or time (Fries | Paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM to 5PM EST.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
/SRISTI DIVINA GOMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights