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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a physical connection configured to couple to a neonatal patch,” in claim 1 and 11, which corresponds to “pins, plugs, or sockets” (see para [0058] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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(s) 1-10 and 15-17 is/are 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.
For claim 1, the claim terms “charger” and “battery charger” are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the same charger is being referred to or if these are different chargers. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claims 5 and 15, the claim term “the health” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined a this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claims 7 and 17, the claim term “the alarm” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined a this being a newly introduced claim term.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 16-17 fail to cure the ambiguity of 1 and 15, thus claim(s) 1-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0330885 to Xu in view of GB 2 389 535 to Tierney and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0389945 to Burkholz et al. (hereinafter “Burkholz”).
For claim 1, Tierney discloses a system (Abstract) with charger, comprising:
a neonatal patch (“wearable patch,” para [0102] and [0128]) that is configured to measure signals from a patient (para [0102] and [0128]);
a wireless communication interface (“bidirectional wireless communication system,” para [0094]);
a rechargeable battery (“battery,” para [0095] and “rechargeable battery,” claim 20); and
a battery charger that is configured to convert ambient radiation into an electrical current (solar cell,” para [0095]), and charge the rechargeable battery using the electrical current (“solar cell,” para [0095]).
Xu does not expressly disclose that the system is a neonatal pod.
However, Tierney teaches that the system is a neonatal pod (Abstract) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu such that the system is a neonatal pod, in view of the teachings of Tierney, for the obvious advantage of applying the same principles of Xu to a baby in a controlled microclimate after the baby is born.
Xu and Tierney do not expressly disclose a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch.
However, Burkholz teaches a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch (para [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu to include a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch, in view of the teachings of Burkholz, as another medium by which data can be transferred or instructions can be sent to the patch (in addition, or alternate, to a wireless medium).
For claim 2, Xu further discloses wherein the battery charger comprises a solar charger (“solar cell,” para [0095]).
For claim 5, Xu further discloses a processing device (“computer” or “computing apparatus,” para [0151]); and a memory device (“memory,” para [0151]) configured to store instructions executable by the processing device (para [0151]) to use the wireless communication interface to provide the signals over a network (see Fig. 4) to a base station (see “Base station” in Fig. 4) configured to make determinations about the health of the patient based on the signals (see Fig. 16) (also see para [0033], [0039], and [0102]).
For claim 9, Xu further discloses wherein the signals represent a physiological condition of the patient (para [0102] and [0128]).
For claim 10, Xu further discloses wherein the patch is selected from a group consisting of an electrocardiogram patch, a core temperature patch, a peripheral temperature patch, a respiratory rate patch, a pulse rate patch, and a specific percentage of oxygen patch (para [0102] and [0128]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tierney and Burkholz, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0183711 to Abbate.
For claim 3, Xu, Tierney, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger.
However, Abbate teaches wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Tierney wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger, in view of the teachings of Abbate, just as another way to generate electrical current from an environment.
For claim 4, Xu, Tierney, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current.
However, Abbate teaches wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current, in view of the teachings of Abbate, just as another way to generate electrical current from an environment.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tierney and Burkholz, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0373007 to Hall et al. (hereinafter “Hall”).
For claim 6, Xu, Tierney, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network; and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network.
However, Hall teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network (para [0069]); and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network (para [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network; and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network, in view of the teachings of Hall, for the obvious advantage of saving the data so that it can be transmitted once connection is restored.
For claim 7, Xu, Tierney, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose an alarm device, and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network.
However, Hall teaches an alarm device (para [0077]), and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network (para [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu to include an alarm device, and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network, in view of the teachings of Hall, for the obvious advantage of indicating to a user and/or healthcare provider the status of the wireless connection.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tierney and Burkholz, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0231235 to Jeong et al. (hereinafter “Jeong”).
For claim 8, Xu, Tierney, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the neonatal patch.
However, Jeong teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the patch (para [0171]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the neonatal patch, in view of the teachings of Jeong, for the obvious advantage of allowing the patch to determine the biometric information to be measured so that the appropriate analyses can be applied and displays be presented to the user.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tierney.
For claim 11, Xu discloses a system (Abstract), comprising:
a processing device (“computer” or “computing apparatus,” para [0151]); and
a memory device (“memory,” para [0151]) configured to store instructions executable by the processing device (para [0151]);
a neonatal patch (“wearable patch,” para [0102] and [0128]) that is configured to measure signals from a patient (para [0102] and [0128]);
a wireless communication interface (“bidirectional wireless communication system,” para [0094]);
a rechargeable battery (“battery,” para [0095] and “rechargeable battery,” claim 20); and
a battery charger that is configured to convert ambient radiation into an electrical current (solar cell,” para [0095]), and charge the rechargeable battery using the electrical current (“solar cell,” para [0095]).
Xu does not expressly disclose a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch.
However, Burkholz teaches a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch (para [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu to include a physical connection configured to couple to the neonatal patch, in view of the teachings of Burkholz, as another medium by which data can be transferred or instructions can be sent to the patch (in addition, or alternate, to a wireless medium).
For claim 12, Xu further discloses wherein the battery charger comprises a solar charger (“solar cell,” para [0095]).
For claim 15, Xu further discloses wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to use the wireless communication interface to provide the signals over a network (see Fig. 4) to a base station (see “Base station” in Fig. 4) configured to make determinations about the health of the patient based on the signals (see Fig. 16) (also see para [0033], [0039], and [0102]).
For claim 19, Xu further discloses wherein the signals represent a physiological condition of the patient (para [0102] and [0128]).
For claim 20, Xu further discloses wherein the patch is selected from a group consisting of an electrocardiogram patch, a core temperature patch, a peripheral temperature patch, a respiratory rate patch, a pulse rate patch, and a specific percentage of oxygen patch (para [0102] and [0128]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tierney, and further in view of Abbate.
For claim 13, Xu and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger.
However, Abbate teaches wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Tierney wherein the battery charger comprises a thermal charger, in view of the teachings of Abbate, just as another way to generate electrical current from an environment.
For claim 14, Xu and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current.
However, Abbate teaches wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current (para [0016]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the thermal charger converts thermal energy from a body of the patient to electrical current, in view of the teachings of Abbate, just as another way to generate electrical current from an environment.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Burkholz, and further in view of Hall.
For claim 16, Xu and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network; and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network.
However, Hall teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network (para [0069]); and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network (para [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to: determine that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network; and store the signals in the memory device until the wireless communication interface is re-connected to the network, in view of the teachings of Hall, for the obvious advantage of saving the data so that it can be transmitted once connection is restored.
For claim 17, Xu, and Burkholz do not expressly disclose an alarm device, and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network.
However, Hall teaches an alarm device (para [0077]), and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network (para [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu to include an alarm device, and wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to activate the alarm in response to determining that the wireless communication interface is not connected to the network, in view of the teachings of Hall, for the obvious advantage of indicating to a user and/or healthcare provider the status of the wireless connection.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Burkholz, and further in view of Jeong.
For claim 18, Xu and Burkholz do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the neonatal patch.
However, Jeong teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the patch (para [0171]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Xu wherein the instructions are executable by the processing device to determine a type of the neonatal patch, in view of the teachings of Jeong, for the obvious advantage of allowing the patch to determine the biometric information to be measured so that the appropriate analyses can be applied and displays be presented to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights