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 § 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.
Claims 9, 10, 17, 18, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zukawa et al. (US 2021/0000355, hereinafter Zukawa).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Zukawa discloses a biological measurement system as shown in figure 12. The system includes a first wearable biological sensor 111a with a first processor 112a and a second wearable biological sensor 111b with a second processor 112b (par. 0200 and 0212). The first sensor can be an ECG sensor configured to be in contact with the body (including any limb) and the second sensor can be an electrical perspiration sensor configured to contact a palm/limb (par. 0203, 0205, 0211). Based on the perspiration sensor, mental perspiration is calculated (par. 0274-0275).
Regarding claims 10, 17, 19 and 24, the ECG sensor is at least two electrodes, such that the first electrode is attached to a first side of the body and the second electrode is attached to a different location considered the second side of the body. The electrodes are configured to be attached to any skin portion of the body, including limbs.
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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukawa in view of Hyodo (US 2022/0401011).
Zukawa, as described above, discloses that mental perspiration can be determined based on a perspiration sensor that detects skin resistance and/or conductance (par. 0274). However, Zukawa does not explicitly teach using skin impedance to determine mental perspiration. Hyodo discloses an analogous device that determines mental perspiration based on skin impedance or skin conductance (par. 0002 and 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Zukawa to utilize skin impedance instead of skin conductance to determine mental perspiration since Hyodo discloses them to be interchangeable.
Claims 15, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukawa in view of Ng et al. (US 6,496,705, hereinafter Ng).
Zukawa discloses ECG sensors, as described above, but is silent as to the specific circuitry of the ECG sensor, including an amplifier and wireless transceivers associated with the ECG sensors. Ng also discloses ECG sensors, and thus is analogous art with Zukawa. Ng discloses the use of amplifiers 30 and transceivers 42 associated with each ECG sensor (figure 3 and Col. 7, lines 24-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Zukawa to include an amplifier and a transceiver with each ECG sensor in order to provide the correct gain to the ECG signals for easier processing and allow for transmission of the ECG signals for further processing and diagnosis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 16, 21-23 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892, specifically US 2016/0242672 which discloses determining mental perspiration of a subject.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights