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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “sensor units” in claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-16, and 19; “battery unit” in claims 6-9; “optical transmitter unit” in claims 12 and 15;“optical receiver unit” in claim 12; “Processing module” in claims 13 and 14.
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.
The terms will be interpreted as follows:
1) “Sensor units” will be interpreted as any generic sensor used in the acquisition of physiological data.
2) “Battery unit” will be interpreted as a battery.
3) “Optical transmitter unit” will be interpreted as any light emitting component (e.g., an LED or laser).
4) “Optical receiver unit” will be interpreted as a photosensors, phototransistors, or photodiodes.
5) “Processing module” will be interpreted as a generic computer processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites, “the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the positions of the plurality of sensor units in the inner circumferential surface are configured to cover at least 300 degrees of the circumference of the circular body.” However, claim 1 recites, “and to leave at least 60 degrees of the circumference of the circular body free of said plurality of sensor units.” (lines 9 and 10). The recitation of “at least 300 degrees” in claim 3 leaves the possibility of more than 300 degrees covered by the sensors. But, since claim 1 requires 60 degrees left free of sensors, the circumference cannot be more than 300 degrees since the circumference cannot exceed 360 degrees total. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “configure to cover 300 degrees.”
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites, “…further comprising a battery made of more than one battery unit…”. It is unclear what the difference is between a battery unit, and a battery. As mentioned in the 112(f) claim interpretation, the battery unit is interpreted as a battery. Therefore, the claim reads a “a battery made of more than one battery.” It is not clear how a single battery is made of more than one battery. For Examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to mean that more than one battery is disposed within the circumference of the circular body. The Examiner recommends amending the claim for clarity.
The term “free of said plurality of sensor units” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “free of said plurality of sensor units” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation based on the recitation of “free of said plurality of sensor units.” It is unclear what is considered to be free of sensor units in comparison to a battery that is not free of sensing units. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the amount" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “an amount” in line 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5, 7-9, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Connor (US 20180307314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Connor teaches a wearable device (abstract; "a wearable circumferential array of electromyographic (EMG) sensors") comprising: a circular body (Fig. 3; The entire embodiment of Fig. 3, the "circumferential array of sensors," is disposed on flexible member 301, a circular body) having an inner circumferential surface (Fig. 3; the inner surface of flexible members 301 that is in contact with the body member when worn); a plurality of sensor units positioned in the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 3; 306, 309; para. [0066]: "energy emitting biometric sensors (such as 306); energy receiving sensors (such as 309) on the electronics housings"), wherein the plurality of sensor units (Fig. 3; 306, 309) is configured to acquire physiological data associated with a user upon activation of two or more of the plurality of sensor units (Abstract: "This invention is a wearable circumferential array of electromyographic (EMG) sensors with a plurality of rings and columns of sensors which collect electromagnetic energy data concerning neuromuscular activity"; para. [0066]: "energy emitting biometric sensors (such as 306); energy receiving sensors (such as 309)"; Multiple sensors shown in Fig. 3 and 4, such as 306 and 309, are activated to emit energy and receive energy. The data from these sensors is sent to the transceiver 304.), wherein positions of the plurality of sensor units in the inner circumferential surface are configured to cover more than 180 degrees of the circumference of the circular body (Fig. 3 and 4; para. [0066]: "The circumferential array of sensors shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 can also be described as comprising…energy emitting biometric sensors (such as 306); energy receiving sensors (such as 309)"; para. [0050]: "In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a single ring of sensors which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member selected from the group consisting of a person's arm, wrist, hand, finger, leg, ankle, and foot. In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a plurality of rings of sensors, each of which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member."; Sensors spanning 75% of a wrist circumference, which is a 360 degree circumference, would be 270 degrees.) and to leave at least 60 degrees of the circumference of the circular body free of said plurality of sensor units. (As mentioned, para. [0050] discloses 75% sensor coverage. The other 25% of a 360 degree wrist not covered by a sensor would be 90 degrees, which is greater than 60 degrees.).
Regarding claim 2, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the positions of the plurality of sensor units in the inner circumferential surface are configured to cover at least 240 degrees of the circumference of the circular body. (Fig. 3 and 4; para. [0066]: "The circumferential array of sensors shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 can also be described as comprising…energy emitting biometric sensors (such as 306); energy receiving sensors (such as 309)"; para. [0050]: "In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a single ring of sensors which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member selected from the group consisting of a person's arm, wrist, hand, finger, leg, ankle, and foot. In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a plurality of rings of sensors, each of which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member."; Sensors spanning 75% of a wrist circumference, which is a 360 degree circumference, would be 270 degrees, which is more than 240 degrees.).
Regarding claim 3, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the positions of the plurality of sensor units in the inner circumferential surface are configured to cover at least 300 degrees of the circumference of the circular body. (para. [0030]: “In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a ring of sensors which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member.” 90% of a 360 degree circumference is 324 degrees, which exceeds 300 degrees.).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the plurality of sensor units are evenly spaced within the circumference covered by the plurality of sensor units (para. [0052]: "In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can encircle a body member (e.g. arm, wrist, hand, finger, leg, ankle, or foot) at different polar coordinate locations around the circumference of the body member. In an example, these polar-coordinate locations can be evenly spaced around the circumference of the body member.); and wherein the plurality of sensor units are unevenly spaced within the circumference covered by the plurality of sensor units. (para. [0052]: "In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can encircle a body member (e.g. arm, wrist, hand, finger, leg, ankle, or foot) at different polar coordinate locations around the circumference of the body member… In an example, these polar-coordinate locations can be unevenly spaced around the circumference of the body member.").
Regarding claim 7, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), further comprising one or more battery units within the circumference that is free of said plurality of sensor units. (Fig. 3; battery 308; The battery is shown on the electronics housing 303, which is a separate structure from the circumferential array of electronics housing 305. Thus, the battery 308 is free of the sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), further comprising one or more battery units (Fig. 3; battery 308) in between two or more of the plurality of sensor units (Fig. 3; battery 308 shown between two electronic housings 305 (on left and right side of 303, which houses 308), which have sensors 306 and 309 disposed on them).
Regarding claim 9, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), further comprising a battery unit embedded in the circular body. (Fig. 3; battery unit 308 is shown embedded in 303, which is disposed on the flexible member 301, which is included in the circular embodiment shown in figure 3.)
Regarding claim 13, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), further comprising a processing module (Fig. 3; data processor 302) configured to control activation of the two or more of the plurality of sensor units to acquire the physiological data (para. [0209]: "Data from the calibration and/or testing period can be analyzed to determine an efficient subset of sensors to activate on an ongoing basis. In an example, a reduction in the number of activated sensors (from total to subset) can be done automatically by a data processing system…In an example, the number of sensors in an activated subset can be at least 25% less than the number of total sensors. In an example, the number of sensors in an activated subset can be at least 50% less than the number of total sensors.").
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Connor teaches the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the wearable device comprises one of a wearable ring device, a wearable necklace device, a wearable bracelet device, or a wearable anklet device (Abstract: " In an example, it can be incorporated into a wearable device or clothing accessory such as an arm band, wrist band, finger ring, leg band, ankle band, bracelet, or watch strap."); and wherein wearable device is configured to be worn on an appendage of a human body, wherein the appendage of a human body is a wrist, an ankle, an arm, a leg, a finger, a toe, or an ear lobe. (Abstract: " In an example, it can be incorporated into a wearable device or clothing accessory such as an arm band, wrist band, finger ring, leg band, ankle band, bracelet, or watch strap.").
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.
Claims 1, 10-12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220211284 A1, "Kim") in view of Connor (US 20180307314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a wearable device (Fig. 2A/2B; wearable device 200) comprising: a circular body (The embodiment of figure 3, wearable device 200, is circular) having an inner circumferential surface (para. [0058]: “The housing 201 includes a first surface 203, which is an inner surface brought into contact with the outer surface of a part of the user's body when the user wears the electronic device.”); a plurality of sensor units (para. [0060]: “The multiple optical sensors 210”) positioned in the inner circumferential surface (Fig. 2A; The multiple optical sensors 210 are shown on the inner surface in Fig. 2A) , wherein the plurality of sensor units is configured to acquire physiological data associated with a user upon activation of two or more of the plurality of sensor units (para. [0060]: “The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode) may at least partially sense reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user). The electronic device 200 may acquire, biometric information such as heart rate, stress, and blood oxygen saturation of (SpO.sub.2) of the user, based on the reflected light sensed by the at least one light receiver 213.” ). However, Kim does not expressly teach wherein positions of the plurality of sensor units in the inner circumferential surface are configured to cover more than 180 degrees of the circumference of the circular body and to leave at least 60 degrees of the circumference of the circular body free of said plurality of sensor units.
Connor, in the same field of endeavor of wearable technology for acquiring biometric data, discloses a circumferential array of sensors disposed on the inner surface of a wearable device. Connor discloses wherein positions of a plurality of sensor units (Fig. 3; 306, 309) in the inner circumferential surface (The inner surface of the flexible member 301 and the embodiment of Fig. 3) are configured to cover more than 180 degrees of the circumference of the circular body (Fig. 3 and 4; para. [0066]: "The circumferential array of sensors shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 can also be described as comprising…energy emitting biometric sensors (such as 306); energy receiving sensors (such as 309)"; para. [0050]: "In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a single ring of sensors which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member selected from the group consisting of a person's arm, wrist, hand, finger, leg, ankle, and foot. In an example, a circumferential array of electromyographic sensors can comprise a plurality of rings of sensors, each of which spans between 75% and 90% of the circumference of a body member."; Sensors spanning 75% of a wrist circumference, which is a 360 degree circumference, would be 270 degrees.) and to leave at least 60 degrees of the circumference of the circular body free of said plurality of sensor units. (As mentioned, para. [0050] discloses 75% sensor coverage. The other 25% of a 360 degree wrist not covered by a sensor would be 90 degrees, which is greater than 60 degrees.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to include the sensor coverage on the inner surface, as disclosed by Connor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a range of sensor coverage would improve the device of Connor since one would be able to acquire sensor data from at least 180 degrees of circumference of an individual’s appendage. As demonstrated by the EMG sensors of Connor, one would be able to use data to improve fitness, or for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Connor demonstrates the effectiveness of placing sensors around the circumference of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kim to include this feature and try the same with other sensor types.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection above), wherein one or more of the plurality of sensor units are configured to operate as photoplethysmogram, PPG, sensors.(para. [0060]: "The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode) may at least partially sense reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user).")
Regarding claim 11, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above). Kim further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of sensor units (Fig. 2A: para. [0059]: "The electronic device 200 includes multiple optical sensors 210.") are configured to operate as reflective and/or transmissive optical sensors. (para. [0059]: " the multiple optical sensors 210 may emit light to the outer surface of a part of the user's body placed in the inward direction of the housing 201, and may sense light reflected therefrom.").
Regarding claim 12, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection above). Kim further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of sensor units (Fig. 2A: para. [0059]: "[0059] The electronic device 200 includes multiple optical sensors 210.") comprise at least one of an optical transmitter unit or an optical receiver unit. The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode) may at least partially sense reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user).
Regarding claim 15, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see above). Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of sensor units comprise an optical transmitter unit (Fig. 2A; para. [0060]: "reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user).") and an optical receiver unit (Fig. 2A; para. [0060]: "The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode)."), wherein the optical transmitter unit and the optical receiver unit are configured to be activated independently from each other (Light emitter 211 and light receiver 213 are two distinct structures. The light emitter is considered to be activated when light is output, and the light receiver is only activated when it senses light (see para. [0065-0069] for functions of both 211 and 213). Since the components are separate structures with distinct functions, they are considered to be independent from each other).
Regarding claim 19, , Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection above). Kim further discloses a controller (para. [0008]: "The electronic device also includes a sensor controller configured to control the optical sensors, and a processor operatively connected to the motion sensor and the sensor controller. The processor is configured to separately drive the optical sensors through the sensor controller to determine a respective signal characteristic of each of the optical sensors, and determine a current state of the object to be measured, based on at least one signal received through the motion sensor or the optical sensors.") configured to acquire the physiological data associated with the user based at least in part on light received by one or more of the plurality of sensor units, light emitted by the one or more of the plurality of sensor units, or both. (para. [0060]: "The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode) may at least partially sense reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user). The electronic device 200 may acquire, biometric information such as heart rate, stress, and blood oxygen saturation of (SpO.sub.2) of the user, based on the reflected light sensed by the at least one light receiver 213.").
Regarding claim 20, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection above). Kim further discloses wherein the physiological data comprises heart rate data, blood oxygen saturation data, or both. (para. [0060]: "The multiple optical sensors 210 may include at least one PPG sensor. In the PPG sensor, a light receiver 213 (e.g., a photodiode) may at least partially sense reflected light when light output by a light emitter 211 (e.g., a light emitting diode (LED)) is reflected by an external object (e.g., a finger of the user). The electronic device 200 may acquire, biometric information such as heart rate, stress, and blood oxygen saturation of (SpO.sub.2) of the user, based on the reflected light sensed by the at least one light receiver 213.").
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 20180307314 A1) in view of Albinali (US 20150054654 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Connor discloses The wearable device according to claim 1 (see above). However, Connor does not expressly disclose a battery made of more than one battery unit within the circumference of the circular body.
Albinali, in the same field of endeavor of wearable sensors, discloses a system for efficiently transmitting data recorded by a wearable sensor. Albinali discloses a battery made of more than one battery unit within the circumference of the circular body. (para. [0040]: "The battery may be a disposable battery (e.g., a coincell battery). In some implementations, the wearable sensor 150 includes a plurality of batteries 152. The plurality of batteries 152 may be used to extend the time between battery replacement/recharging.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Connor to include multiple battery units in the circumference of the circular body, as disclosed by Albinali. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that including multiple batteries would be an improvement to the device of Connor since it would provide the power necessary for efficient data transmission and improved sensing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to improve the battery life of the device, as disclosed in Alibani (see para. [0003] of Alibani). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Alibani to include multiple batteries.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220211284 A1, "Kim"), Connor (US 20180307314 A1), and Zaliasl et al. (US 20200069206 A1, " Zaliasl).
Regarding claim 14, Kim, in combination with Connor, discloses the wearable device according to claim 12 (see 103 rejection above). However, neither reference discloses wherein the processing module is configured to select the sensor units to activate based on detected signal quality metrics.
Zalialsl, in the same field of endeavor of acquiring electrical signals from a subject using a wearable device, discloses a system for evaluating signal quality. Zalialsl discloses wherein a processing module (para. [0111]: “The signal selection logic 510”) is configured to select the sensor units to activate based on detected signal quality metrics, detected orientation of the wearable device, power consumption, or any combination thereof. (para. [0111]: " Each sensor unit 530a-d may comprise a plurality of electrodes 502, a plurality of signal quality detectors 504, a signal selection logic 510 and a multiplexer 512. The signal selection logic 510 and the signal quality detectors 504 of each sensor unit 530a-d may function, as described above, to determine the pair of electrodes 502 of the respective sensor unit 530a-d providing a best quality signal. The signal selection logic 510 may further control the multiplexer 512 of each sensor unit 530a-d to select the signal from the pair of electrodes 502 providing best quality for output by the multiplexer 512.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to a processor that selects signals based on their quality metrics, as disclosed by Zaliasl. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that recognizing which sensors provide the cleanest signal is advantageous, and that controlling the sensor to acquire signals from the cleanest signal would improve efficiency in sensing of biometric data (see Zaliasl para. [0005] and [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Connor to further include this control feature based on signal quality.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor (US 20180307314 A1) in view of Hussami et al. (US 20220269346 A1, "Hussami").
Regarding claim 16, Connor discloses the wearable device according to claim 1 (see 102 rejection above). However, Connor does not expressly disclose wherein the amount of the plurality of sensor units varies in proportion to circumference of the circular body.
Hussami, in the same field of endeavor of sensing biometric data on a wearable device, discloses a device and method for acquiring neuromuscular data. Hussami discloses wherein the amount of the plurality of sensor units (20610) varies in proportion to circumference of the circular body. (para. [0802]: " It should be appreciated that any suitable number of sensors 20610 may be used, and the spacing need not be regular. The number and arrangement of the sensors 20610 may depend on the particular application for which the wearable system is used. For instance, the number and arrangement of the sensors 20610 may differ when the wearable system is to be worn on a wrist in comparison with a thigh."; Hussami discloses varying the number of sensors based on the size of the appendage. A wrist would have a different circumference than a thigh. Therefore, the number of sensors could be varied based on the circumference of the appendage (which is proportional to the circumference of the device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Connor to include a number of sensors proportional to the circumference, as disclosed by Hussami. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying the number of sensors based on the circumference would improve the device of Connor by making it more versatile in which appendages the device can be configured to be worn. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the number of sensors would vary depending on the appendage size. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to improve the device of Connor by incorporating sensor amounts proportional to the circumference of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWEN LEWIS MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-8584. The examiner can normally be reached PTA week 5 schedule.
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.
/O.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights