DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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 1-11 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies (JP2023-204708 filed on 12/4/23; and JP2024-187149 filed on 10/24/23) have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 3, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brister et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0178378 A1) (hereinafter “Brister”) in view of LeFiles et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0298651 A1) (hereinafter “LeFiles”).
With respect to claim 1, Brister teaches a biological information detection system (title “transcutaneous analyte sensor”) comprising: a biosensor configured to detect biological information of a subject (sensor assembly 310 detects biological information from skin via transcutaneous analyte sensor 716, as depicted in Fig. 30); and a case configured to house the biosensor (receiver 720 and docking station 722 in Figs. 31A and 31B; see also par.0423 “a docking station 722 for receiving and holding the electronics unit 718 (from the sensor assembly 310) when not in use”), wherein the biosensor comprises: a first storage configured to store the detected biological information and sensor identification information specific to the biosensor (par.0265 “provides semi-permanent storage of data, for example, storing data such as sensor identifier (ID) and programming to process data streams”), and a first transmitter configured to transmit the biological information and the sensor identification information which are stored in the first storage (par.0272 “RF module 148 is operably connected to the processor 138 and transmits the sensor data from the sensor to a receiver within a wireless transmission 150 via antenna 152”), and wherein the case comprises: a receiver configured to receive the biological information
However, Brister does not teach the case comprises receive the sensor identification information which are transmitted by the transmitter, a second transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit, to an external device, the biological information and the sensor identification information which are received by the receiver, in association with each other, and a case controller configured to control communication through the receiver and communication through the second transmitter.
LeFiles teaches receive the sensor identification information which are transmitted by the transmitter, a second transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit, to an external device, the biological information and the sensor identification information which are received by the receiver, in association with each other, and a case controller configured to control communication through the receiver and communication through the second transmitter (par.0051 “a user authentication function to verify that authenticated users and mobile devices are properly screened and allowed access”; par.0056 “After authenticating the user and equipment information… real-time data from the probe and detection circuitry of the detector are transmitted to the mobile device 18”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) when the invention was filed to modify Brister to incorporate receiving sensor identification information and a second transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit, to an external device, the biological information and the sensor identification information which are received by the receiver, in association with each other, and a case controller configured to control communication through the receiver and communication through the second transmitter, in order to verify that authenticated users and mobile devices are properly screened and allowed access prior to transmitting sensor data to an external device, as evidence by LeFiles (par.0051+, 56).
With respect to claim 2, Brister teaches wherein the case controller is further configured to: detect whether the biosensor is housed in the case, and control communication through the receiver in response to detecting that the biosensor has been housed in the case (par.0425 “the receiver 720 includes programming that stops searching for a transmission from the sensor assembly 310 (particularly, from electronics unit 718) when the electronics unit 718 is docked on the receiver 720, which is believed to minimize unnecessary use of power”; see also par.0086, 423-427).
With respect to claim 3, Brister teaches wherein the case controller: comprises a second storage configured to store the sensor identification information received by the receiver, and is further configured to output, to the external device, latest sensor identification information and information indicating that the biosensor has not been housed in the case, in response to detecting that the biosensor has not been housed in the case, the latest sensor identification information being sensor identification information stored in the second storage (par.0086, 0265, 0280, 0352, 423-427).
With respect to claim 4, Brister teaches wherein the case controller is further configured to control communication through the receiver to obtain subject identification information specific to the subject, and wherein the case controller is configured to, as part of the outputting, control communication through the second transmitter to transmit, to the external device, the subject identification information in addition to the biological information and the sensor identification information in association with one another (par.0086, 0265, 0280, 0352, 423-427).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brister and LeFiles, as applied to claims 1-4 above, in further view of Park et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0085225 A1) (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claims 5-7, Brister and LeFiles teach a biological information detection system, as established above.
Regarding claim 5, Brister also teaches wherein the biosensor further comprises a sensor controller configured to determine whether the biosensor has been housed in the case (par.0086, 0265, 0280, 0352, 423-427).
However, Brister does not teach the limitations further recited in claims 5-7.
With respect to claim 5, Park suggests wherein the sensor controller is configured to count a first elapsed time from when the biosensor is removed from the case, until the biosensor is housed in the case, wherein, in response to detection of the biological information while counting the first elapsed time, the first storage is configured to store the detected biological information and the first elapsed time obtained when the biological information is detected, in association with each other, and wherein, the case controller is configured to, when controlling communication through the receiver, receive the first elapsed time in addition to the biological information and the sensor identification information, the first elapsed time being obtained when the biological information is detected (par.0022 “generated sensor usage information may be at least one of a user-start time of the sensor module and an identifier of the transmitter”; see also par.0023, 29-30, 65, 72, 79-80, 88, 91, 100, 104).
With respect to claim 6, Park suggests wherein the case controller is further configured to: count a second elapsed time from when it is determined that the biosensor has not been housed in the case, until it is subsequently determined that the biosensor has been housed in the case, and, as part of the outputting, control the second transmitter to transmit, to the external device, the second elapsed time in addition to the biological information and the sensor identification information in association with one another, the second elapsed time being obtained when it is determined that the biosensor has been housed (par.0022-23, 29-30, 65, 72, 79-80, 88, 91, 100, 104).
With respect to claim 7, Park suggests wherein the case controller is configured to: count a second elapsed time from when it is determined that the biosensor has not been housed in the case, until it is subsequently determined that the biosensor has been housed in the case, and output information indicating that the biosensor has not been housed in the case, when the second elapsed time exceeds a predetermined period of time (par.0022-23, 29-30, 65, 72, 79-80, 88, 91, 100, 104).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed to modify Brister and LeFiles to take into consideration first/second elapsed times, in the manner recited, for the purpose of determining whether or not the sensor module has validity of use in accordance with the manufacturing date or production lot information of the sensor module while also outputting information to the user regarding remaining use period, as evidence by Park (par.0023, 29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brister and LeFiles, as applied to claims 1-4 above, in further view of Fukuda (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0234415 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Brister and LeFiles teach a biological information detection system, as established above.
However, Brister and LeFiles do not teach the limitations further recited in claim 8.
Fukuda suggests wherein the biosensor comprises a capacitive sensor configured to detect an electrostatic capacity value as data for calculating the biological information, wherein the case further comprises a conductor disposed in contact with the capacitive sensor when the biosensor is housed in the case, and wherein the case controller is configured to determine whether the biosensor has been housed in the case on a basis of the electrostatic capacity value detected by the capacitive sensor (par.0074 “the electrostatic capacitive sensors… are sensors that output sensor values in accordance with the positional relationship between the casing 300 and the body”; par.0077 “determines whether or not a part of the body is present in the hole in the casing 300 based on the sensor values of the electrostatic capacitive sensors”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed to modify Brister and LeFiles to incorporate a capacitive sensor, in the manner recited, for the purpose of detecting presence of a body (e.g. when Brister’s biosensor is housed/received via docking station), as evidence by Fukuda (par.0074, 77).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2023/0020120 A1
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights