DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated October 4, 2024.
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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
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.
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 1-2, 7-9, and 11-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (Tsuzuki; US PG Pub #2011/0308297) in view of Karsten (US PG Pub #2004/0239510).
As to claim 1, Tsuzuki teaches a system for detecting intoxication of a user, the system comprising:
a breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0002] teaches a breath alcohol measuring apparatus that can measure a breath alcohol concentration), the breathalyzer device comprising:
an inlet, the inlet configured to receive a breath sample from the user (Paragraph [0040] teaches a mouth piece serving as a breath blowing portion provided to casing that is held by a person with his/her mouth and into which a breath is blown; Paragraph [0041] teaches a breath injecting port);
a 1st display device comprising a screen at a broad surface of the breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0044] teaches an alcohol concentration display portion that is a display device such as an LCD);
a 2nd display device separate and distinct from the 1st display device, the 2nd display device comprising a set of light emitters (Paragraph [0045] teaches a breath pressure display portion including five light-emitting members); and
a processing subsystem configured to determine an intoxication parameter based on the breath sample and control at least one of: the 1st display device or the 2ⁿᵈ display device, or a haptic device based on the intoxication parameter (Paragraph [0047] teaches the beath alcohol measuring apparatus includes a CPU or central processing unit for controlling the whole apparatus; Paragraph [0071] teaches that the CPU allows the alcohol concentration display portion to display the measured alcohol concentration).
However, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach the breathalyzer device comprises
a haptic device configured to provide haptic stimulation to a user proximal
in time to provision of the breath sample.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches the breathalyzer device comprises
a haptic device configured to provide haptic stimulation to a user proximal
in time to provision of the breath sample (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 2, depending from the system of Claim 1, Tsuzuki teaches wherein the inlet is at least partially defined in a mouthpiece, the mouthpiece reversibly coupleable with the breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0040] teaches a mouth piece serving as a breath blowing portion provided to casing that is held by a person with his/her mouth and into which a breath is blown; Figures 1 and 7-9 show the mouth piece as a straight cylindrical piece, similar to a straw).
As to claim 7, depending from the system of Claim 1, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the 2nd display device is arranged at a surface of the breathalyzer device perpendicular to the broad surface.
However, Tsuzuki does teach arranging a display portion at a position that projects from the surface of the casing at a position opposite the eyes of the person who is blowing into the mouth peace to allow the person to easily recognize the display portion (Paragraph [0099]; Figure 9 shows the projected surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki such that the projected surface is perpendicular to the broad surface and to incorporate the first, second, or both displays on this surface because this yields the predictable result of better allowing the eyes of the user to clearly see the visual indications by putting the eyes and the indicators in direct alignment.
As to claim 8, depending from the system of Claim 1, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the processing subsystem further controls the haptic device prior to determining the intoxication parameter.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches wherein the processing subsystem further controls the haptic device prior to determining the intoxication parameter (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 9, depending from the system of Claim 8, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the processing subsystem controls the haptic device during receipt of the breath sample from the user.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches wherein the processing subsystem controls the haptic device during receipt of the breath sample from the user (Paragraph [0052] teaches a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator that is controlled to be turned off when the breath test actually commences). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 11, Tsuzuki teaches a method for detecting intoxication of a user with a breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0050] teaches a CPU of a breath alcohol measuring apparatus executes a process), the method comprising:
with an inlet of the breathalyzer device, receiving a breath sample from the user (Paragraph [0040] teaches a mouth piece serving as a breath blowing portion provided to casing that is held by a person with his/her mouth and into which a breath is blown; Paragraph [0041] teaches a breath injecting port);
processing the breath sample to determine an intoxication parameter (Paragraph [0047] teaches the beath alcohol measuring apparatus includes a CPU or central processing unit for controlling the whole apparatus; Paragraph [0070] teaches executing measurement of the alcohol concentration);
displaying a 1st set of visual information at a 1st display device onboard the
breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0044] teaches an alcohol concentration display portion that is a display device such as an LCD);
displaying a 2ⁿᵈ set of visual information at a 2ⁿᵈ display device onboard the
breathalyzer device (Paragraph [0045] teaches a breath pressure display portion including five light-emitting members); and
controlling at least one of: the 1st display device, the 2ⁿᵈ display device, or a
haptic device based on the intoxication parameter (Paragraph [0047] teaches the beath alcohol measuring apparatus includes a CPU or central processing unit for controlling the whole apparatus; Paragraph [0071] teaches that the CPU allows the alcohol concentration display portion to display the measured alcohol concentration).
However, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach providing vibratory stimulation at a haptic device onboard the breathalyzer device.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches providing vibratory stimulation at a haptic device onboard the breathalyzer device (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 12, depending from the method of Claim 11, Tsuzuki teaches wherein the 1st display device is separate and distinct from the 2nd display device (Paragraph [0044] teaches an alcohol concentration display portion that is a display device such as an LCD; Paragraph [0045] teaches a breath pressure display portion including five light-emitting members), wherein the 1st and 2nd display devices are arranged at different locations onboard the breathalyzer device (Figures 1, 7A, and 7B clearly show the display portion and light emitting members at different locations).
As to claim 13, depending from the method of Claim 12, Tsuzuki teaches wherein the 1st display device comprises a screen (Paragraph [0044] teaches an alcohol concentration display portion that is a display device such as an LCD) and wherein the 2nd display device comprises a set of light emitters (Paragraph [0045] teaches a breath pressure display portion including five light-emitting members).
As to claim 14, depending from the method of Claim 11, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the vibratory stimulation is provided proximal in time to provision of the breath sample.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches wherein the vibratory stimulation is provided proximal in time to provision of the breath sample (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 15, depending from the method of Claim 14, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the vibratory stimulation is provided prior to determining the intoxication parameter.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches wherein the vibratory stimulation is provided prior to determining the intoxication parameter (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten because providing indications to multiple senses of the operator yields the predictable result of increasing reliability of operation of the breathalyzer by ensuring the operator acts appropriately.
As to claim 20, depending from the method of Claim 11, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises providing the vibratory stimulation during receipt of the breath sample from the user.
In the field of breath alcohol detection systems, Karsten teaches wherein the method further comprises providing the vibratory stimulation (Paragraphs [0049]-[0052] teach a breath alcohol detection device with a vibrator indicator to notify an operator of the status of a test procedure, such as initiation of the procedure by the vibrator going off intermittently). Although not explicitly stated that the vibration is given during receipt of the breath sample from the user, Karsten does teach that the vibration “may be turned off when the breath test actually commences” (Paragraph [0052]) which is open to the interpretation that the vibration may or may not be turned off when the breath test commences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the vibrator of Karsten to provide the vibratory stimulation during receipt of the breath sample from the user because the vibration either is or is not turned off such that based on the finite number of options, it would have been obvious to try providing the vibration while receiving the breath sample so that when the vibration stops it signals to the user that he or she can stop breathing or blowing into the mouth piece.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (Tsuzuki; US PG Pub #2011/0308297) in view of Karsten (US PG Pub #2004/0239510) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Arias (US PG Pub #2008/0294059).
As to claim 3, depending from the system of Claim 1, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the processing subsystem is configured to display a future prediction at the 1st display device based on the intoxication parameter.
In the field of monitoring blood alcohol concentration, Arias teaches wherein the processing subsystem is configured to determine a future prediction at the 1st display device based on the intoxication parameter (Paragraph [0001] teaches a system to determine a future point of time at which the alcohol concentration in the blood of a user is less than a threshold value; Paragraph [0049] teaches forecasting when the user can start driving or start breastfeeding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Tsuzuki with the prediction of Arias such that the future prediction is displayed because predicting and displaying when a user is safe to resume activities yields the predictable result of informing the user of potentially life-saving information.
As to claim 4, depending from the system of Claim 3, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the future prediction comprises a predicted future intoxication state of the user.
In the field of monitoring blood alcohol concentration, Arias teaches wherein the future prediction comprises a predicted future intoxication state of the user (Paragraph [0001] teaches a system to determine a future point of time at which the alcohol concentration in the blood of a user is less than a threshold value; Paragraph [0049] teaches forecasting when the user can start driving or start breastfeeding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the prediction of Arias because predicting and displaying when a user is safe to resume activities yields the predictable result of informing the user of potentially life-saving information.
As to claim 16, depending from the method of Claim 11, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the 1st set of visual information comprises a future prediction determined based on the intoxication parameter.
In the field of monitoring blood alcohol concentration, Arias teaches wherein the 1st set of visual information comprises a future prediction determined based on the intoxication parameter (Paragraph [0001] teaches a system to determine a future point of time at which the alcohol concentration in the blood of a user is less than a threshold value; Paragraph [0049] teaches forecasting when the user can start driving or start breastfeeding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Tsuzuki with the prediction of Arias such that the future prediction is displayed because predicting and displaying when a user is safe to resume activities yields the predictable result of informing the user of potentially life-saving information.
As to claim 17, depending from the method of Claim 16, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the future prediction comprises a predicted future intoxication state of the user.
In the field of monitoring blood alcohol concentration, Arias teaches wherein the future prediction comprises a predicted future intoxication state of the user (Paragraph [0001] teaches a system to determine a future point of time at which the alcohol concentration in the blood of a user is less than a threshold value; Paragraph [0049] teaches forecasting when the user can start driving or start breastfeeding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the prediction of Arias because predicting and displaying when a user is safe to resume activities yields the predictable result of informing the user of potentially life-saving information.
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (Tsuzuki; US PG Pub #2011/0308297) in view of Karsten (US PG Pub #2004/0239510) and Arias (US PG Pub #2008/0294059) as applied to claims 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Greenlee (US Patent #5,274,550).
As to claim 5, depending from the system of Claim 3, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the 2nd display device indicates a category of a current intoxication state of the user.
In the field of blood alcohol level determining devices, Greenlee teaches wherein the 2nd display device indicates a category of a current intoxication state of the user (Column 6, Lines 3-43 teach illuminating individual visual indicators based on ranges of the blood alcohol level calculated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the blood alcohol ranges of Greenlee because this yields the predictable result of conveying information to the user in an easily understood manner so that a person, even when inebriated, can comprehend their situation.
As to claim 6, depending from the system of Claim 5, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the category is indicated with a color of the lighting module.
In the field of blood alcohol level determining devices, Greenlee teaches wherein the category is indicated with a color of the lighting module (Column 6, Lines 3-43 teach illuminating green, yellow, or red visual indicators based on ranges of the blood alcohol level calculated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the blood alcohol ranges of Greenlee because this yields the predictable result of conveying information to the user in an easily understood manner so that a person, even when inebriated, can comprehend their situation.
As to claim 18, depending from the method of Claim 16, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the 2nd display device indicates a category of current intoxication of the user.
In the field of blood alcohol level determining devices, Greenlee teaches wherein the 2nd display device indicates a category of a current intoxication of the user (Column 6, Lines 3-43 teach illuminating individual visual indicators based on ranges of the blood alcohol level calculated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the blood alcohol ranges of Greenlee because this yields the predictable result of conveying information to the user in an easily understood manner so that a person, even when inebriated, can comprehend their situation.
As to claim 19, depending from the method of Claim 18, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the category is indicated with a color of the lighting module.
In the field of blood alcohol level determining devices, Greenlee teaches wherein the category is indicated with a color of the lighting module (Column 6, Lines 3-43 teach illuminating green, yellow, or red visual indicators based on ranges of the blood alcohol level calculated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with the blood alcohol ranges of Greenlee because this yields the predictable result of conveying information to the user in an easily understood manner so that a person, even when inebriated, can comprehend their situation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (Tsuzuki; US PG Pub #2011/0308297) in view of Karsten (US PG Pub #2004/0239510) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Greenlee (US Patent #5,274,550).
As to claim 10, depending from the system of Claim 8, Tsuzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the processing subsystem controls the 1st display device and the 2nd display device based on the intoxication parameter.
In the field of blood alcohol level determining devices, Greenlee teaches wherein the processing subsystem controls the 1st display device and the 2nd display device based on the intoxication parameter (Column 5, Lines 25-31 teach displaying blood alcohol level on an alphanumeric display; Column 6, Lines 3-43 teach illuminating green, yellow, or red visual indicators based on ranges of the blood alcohol level calculated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsuzuki with first and second displays of Greenlee because this yields the predictable result of conveying information to the user in an easily understood manner and a detailed manner so that a person, even when inebriated, can wholly comprehend their situation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Childre et al. (US PG Pub #2005/0124906) teach a tactile indicator that provides a tactile signal to the subject when a breath should be taken (Paragraph [0041]).
Son (US PG Pub #2012/0291517)
Mochizuki et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0165697)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688