Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory, these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
12. A vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel, the vital sign monitoring steering wheel comprising;
a memory storing one or more computer executable instructions; (generic computer elements)
at least one processor (generic computer elements) configured to execute the one or more computer executable instructions thereby causing the at least one processor to:
receive one or more vital signs from at least one electrochemical sensor configured to detect one or more molecules in sweat from a hand of a driver on the vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel; (data gathering using generic computer elements)
determine a health risk of the driver based at least in part on the vital signs (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)); and
alert the driver in response to the determined health risk. (data outputting)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISSEMAN et al. (US 8725230 B2) in view of FENG et al. (US 20160151021 A1).
Re claim 1. LISSEMAN discloses (abstract) a steering wheel system (FIG.1-2) for monitoring vital signs of a driver, the steering wheel system comprising:
a steering wheel 20;
an array of sensors 40 integrated into the steering wheel, wherein each of the sensors are configured to detect one or more vital signs of the driver; (c.2, l.26-37)
a memory storing one or more computer executable instructions; and (c.6, l.50-54)
at least one processor 60 configured to execute the one or more computer executable instructions thereby causing the at least one processor to:
receive the one or more vital signs from the array of sensors, wherein the one or more vital signs correspond to cortisol levels, alcohol levels, one or more proteins associated with an occurrence stroke, one or more biomarkers associated with myocardial infarctions, temperature, pulse rate, and oxygen levels (c.2, l.26-37; c.6, l.29-49).
However, LISSEMAN fails to explicitly disclose:
determine a health risk of the driver based at least in part on the vital signs; and
alert the driver in response to the health risk exceeding a certain health risk level.
FENG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0016], a steering wheel device using sensor to determine a health risk of driver based on vital signs and to emit an alert in response to health risk exceeding a certain risk level.
[0016] Refer to FIG. 1 a block diagram schematically showing a system for detecting a drive's sudden heart attack according to one embodiment of the present invention. The system 10 for detecting a drive's sudden heart attack of the present invention is built in a microcomputer of a vehicle or an independent device. The system 10 comprises a plurality of sensors 12 and a monitoring system 14. The sensors 12 include a respiration rate sensor 122, a heart rhythm sensor 124 and a blood pressure sensor 126. The heart rhythm sensor 124 is installed in the safety belt or in form of a patch attached to the chest. After the driver wears the safety belt, the heart rhythm sensor 124 touches the chest of the driver and detects the heartbeats of the driver. The respiration rate sensor 122 and the heart rhythm sensor 124 are arranged in an identical patch or respectively in different patches. The respiration rate sensor 122 detects the respiration signals of the driver. In one embodiment, the blood pressure sensor 126 is disposed in an area where the driver's hand holds the steering wheel. The blood pressure sensor detects the blood pressure of the driver in an optical method. For example, the blood pressure sensor 126 projects light to the finger and determines the blood pressure according to the spectrum of the reflected light. Thereby, the three sensors 122, 124 and 126 respectively capture the signals of respiration rate, heart rhythm and blood pressure of the driver. The monitoring system 14 includes a processor 142 and a memory 144. The processor 142 uses the abovementioned signals to establish a plurality of personalized models 150, including a respiration rate model 152, a heart rhythm model 154 and a blood pressure model 156, and stores the models in the memory 144. The processor 142 respectively sets threshold values for the respiration rate model 152, the heart rhythm model 154 and the blood pressure model 156. In addition to establishing the personalized models 150, the processor 142 determines whether any vital-sign signal exceeds the threshold value thereof. If at least one vital-sign signal exceeds the threshold value thereof, the processor 142 determines the risk of the driver according to the number of the types of the vital-sign signals exceeding the threshold values thereof and emits an alert if necessary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the sensors on steering wheel to determine a potential health risk of driver during vehicle operation in order to provide an alert that driver may be at health risk.
2. LISSEMAN discloses (c.2, l.26-37) the steering wheel system of claim 1, wherein the array of sensors comprise one or more of a cortisol sweat sensor, alcohol sweat sensor, myocardial infarctions sensor, stroke sweat sensor, dehydration sweat sensor, pulse rate sensor, and oxygen level sensor.
3. LISSEMAN discloses (c.6, l.29-49) the steering wheel system of claim 1, wherein the array of sensors comprise an electrocardiogram sensor configured to monitor heart activity of the driver.
12. As applied for claim 1 given their similarity, a vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel, the vital sign monitoring steering wheel comprising; a memory storing one or more computer executable instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the one or more computer executable instructions thereby causing the at least one processor to: receive one or more vital signs from at least one electrochemical sensor configured to detect one or more molecules in sweat from a hand of a driver on the vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel; determine a health risk of the driver based at least in part on the vital signs; and alert the driver in response to the determined health risk.
20. As for claim 3, the vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 12, further comprising at least one electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor.
Claim(s) 4-5, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISSEMAN et al. (US 8725230 B2) in view of FENG et al. (US 20160151021 A1) in view of PEETERS (US 6325904 B1).
However, LISSEMAN and FENG fails to explicitly disclose:
4. the steering wheel system of claim 2, wherein the cortisol sweat sensor, alcohol sweat sensor, myocardial infarctions sensor, stroke sweat sensor, and dehydration sweat sensor comprise a flexible substrate, a plurality of nanostructures, a conductive electrode, counter electrode, work electrode, and reference electrode.
PEETERS teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, (c.1, l.18-23) wherein a sensor can be used within medical field. The sensor is composed of plurality of nanostructures (abstract). Sensor structure includes substrate, conductive electrodes and other electrodes used for sensing functions (c.4, l.44 – c.9, l.50). One of ordinary skill in the art understands sensors are known to use various electrode elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the sensor structures as taught by PEETERS in order to obtain a proper sensor for detecting vital signs of a driver.
However, LISSEMAN and FENG and PEETERS fails to explicitly disclose:
5. The steering wheel system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of nanostructures are configured to be slidable for replacement after usage.
One of ordinary skill in the art that configuring slidable components for replacement after some usage is common for all sensors. Official notice is taken that a design parameter for replaceable sensor elements in a vehicle could be configured to be slidable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try forming nanostructures of sensor to be slidable for the purpose of facilitating replacement as necessary.
10. As for claim 4, the steering wheel system of claim 1, one or more of the array of sensors is an electrochemical sensor.
11. As for claim 4, the steering wheel system of claim 10, wherein the electrochemical sensor comprises a flexible substrate, one or more nanostructures, and one or more of a conductive electrode, counter electrode, working electrode, or a reference electrode.
13. As for claim 2-4, the vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 12, wherein the at least one electrochemical sensor comprises a flexible substrate, one or more nanostructures, and one or more of a conductive electrode, counter electrode, working electrode, or a reference electrode.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISSEMAN et al. (US 8725230 B2) in view of FENG et al. (US 20160151021 A1) in view of WANG et al. (US 20170325724 A1).
However, LISSEMAN and FENG fails to explicitly disclose:
6. The steering wheel system of claim 1, wherein the alcohol levels are determined based at least in part on an interaction between ethanol molecules in sweat droplets of the driver and an electrode in an alcohol sweat sensor.
WANG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0188] wherein alcohol levels are determined for a driver of vehicle based on sweat of driver and an electrode, etc.
[0110] In some implementations for alcohol detection, a three electrode system for the electrochemical sensor electrode assembly is preferred. Whereas for glucose detection, the electrochemical sensor electrode assembly may include a two electrode system (e.g., working electrode and counter/reference electrode) because the current measured as a function of glucose concentration is relatively low, such that the two electrode system is sufficient to detect glucose. For example, in case of alcohol detection, the concentration of alcohol can be relatively high in the biofluid (e.g., sweat), and hence the current measured is higher, and thereby a three electrode system can be utilized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using sweat for alcohol level determination in order to determine if a driver is impaired.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISSEMAN et al. (US 8725230 B2) in view of FENG et al. (US 20160151021 A1) in view of WANG et al. (US 20170325724 A1) further in view of MICHETTI et al. (“The S100B story: from biomarker to active factor in neural injury”).
However, LISSEMAN and FENG and WANG fails to explicitly disclose:
7. The steering wheel system of claim 1, wherein the one or more proteins are detected by a stroke sweat sensor based at least in part on an interaction between the one or more proteins in sweat droplets of the driver and an electrode in the stroke sweat sensor.
8. The steering wheel system of claim 7, wherein the one or more proteins comprise the S100B protein.
14. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 13, the working electrode is coated with an enzyme that binds to molecules in a chemical present in the sweat of the driver.
15. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 14, wherein the molecules are ethanol molecules.
16. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 13, the working electrode is coated with a binding molecule that binds to proteins present in the sweat of the driver.
17. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 16, wherein the proteins are calcium-binding proteins.
18. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 17, wherein the proteins are S100B proteins.
19. The vital sign monitoring sensor steering wheel of claim 14, enzyme is a alcohol dehydrogenase.
MICHETTI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, the use of sensor to detect in bodily fluids such as sweat (pages 168-180) protein molecules such as S100B or alcohols to determine a health condition. MICHETTI suggests detecting methods to determine various health conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the suggestions of MICHETTI in order to properly determine various health conditions for a driver.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISSEMAN et al. (US 8725230 B2) in view of FENG et al. (US 20160151021 A1) further in view of ERSHOV et al. (US 20110125002 A1).
However, LISSEMAN as modified by FENG fails to explicitly disclose:
9. The steering wheel system of claim 1, wherein the temperature and pulse rate of the driver can be determined using the same electrodes based on a position of at least one hand of the driver on the steering wheel.
ERSHOV teaches (abstract) using a sensor for determining temperature and pulse rate using electrodes on a position of a hand on steering wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to determine vital conditions of driver using temperature and pulse rate given that these measurements are known as vital parameters in order to determine a safe condition of driver while operating vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 7/9/2026
Prosecution Insights