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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-14 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,712,797. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations of claims 1, 4, 12, 14, 16 and 18 in the current Application are disclosed in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,712,797. Further, all claim limitations of claim 16 in the current Application are also disclosed in claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,712,797. Furthermore, claims 5 and 19 are disclosed in claim 17, claim 15 is disclosed in claim 19, and claim 20 is disclosed in claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,712,797.
In addition, claims 12-20 in the current Application are disclosed in respective claims 10-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,360,537 as follows: claim 12 is disclosed in claim 10, claim 13 is disclosed in claim 11, claim 14 is disclosed in claim 12, claim 15 is disclosed in claim 13, claims 16 and 18-19 are disclosed in claim 14, claim 17 is disclosed in claim 15, and claim 20 is disclosed in claim 18.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “means for enabling, responsive to occurrence of the first deployment indicator, control means for monitoring for occurrence of a second deployment indicator” and “means for transitioning, responsive to occurrence of the second deployment indicator, the body-mountable electronic device from the second state to an operational state”, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, claims 10 and 11 recite the limitations “means for detecting the first deployment indicator” and “means for detecting the first deployment indicator”, respectively
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Although the disclosure describes waking-up (i.e. enabling) the control circuitry 124/microcontroller 420 (which is the corresponding structure for the “control means” recited in claim 1), the disclosure does not describe any specific structure that performs such wake-up. The wakeup is in response to signal received from motion sensor 122/430, shown in FIG(s) 1 and 4, which motion sensor is the corresponding structure for the “means for monitoring” recited in claim 1. Further, the disclosure does not describe any specific structure for the “means for transitioning” – that functionality is also performed by the control circuitry/microcontroller (i.e. this functionality is also performed by the same “control means”). The same applies for the “means for detecting the first deployment indicator” and “means for detecting the first deployment indicator”, recited in claims 10 and 11, respectively. The functionality for both these means is performed by the control circuitry/microcontroller – i.e. by the same “control means” as explained above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-11, being dependent on claim 1, are rejected based on the same ground of rejection.
In addition, claim 8 recites the limitation "the motion sensor" in lines 2-3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the above-indicated limitation reads “a motion sensor”.
Claim 6 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “means for enabling, responsive to occurrence of the first deployment indicator, control means for monitoring for occurrence of a second deployment indicator” in lines 4-5. Accordingly, upon enablement, the “control means” commence monitoring for occurrence of a second deployment indicator. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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(s) 1-4, 6, 10-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0324520.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a two-phase deployment-initiated wakeup apparatus (FIG(s) 1-5) comprising:
means for monitoring (FIG. 2 accelerometer 11) for occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of a body-mountable electronic device (the accelerometer sensor monitors for acceleration and outputs the first interrupt signal S1, accordingly [i.e. occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of a body-mountable electronic device] – paragraph 0038, lines 3-7, FIG. 3, ST1-Y, ST2, paragraph 0052, lines 1-5, paragraph 0053, lines 1-2);
means for enabling (FIG. 2, control unit 29), responsive to occurrence of the first deployment indicator, control means (FIG. 2, living body tactile sensor 13 and wearing determination unit 21) for monitoring for occurrence of a second deployment indicator, wherein enabling the control means transitions the body-mountable electronic device from a first state to a second state (upon monitoring and receipt of signal S1 by the control unit 29, the control unit 29 outputs interrupt signal S11 [i.e. the second deployment indicator] to wake up the living body tactile sensor 13 and wearing determination unit 21 [i.e. transitioning to the second/woken up state] – paragraph 0038, lines 7-10, paragraph 0040, lines 10-13, paragraph 0041, lines 4-8, FIG. 3, ST3, paragraph 0054, lines 1-7); and
means for transitioning (wearing determination unit 21), responsive to occurrence of the second deployment indicator, the body-mountable electronic device from the second state to an operational state (after being woken up in response to signal S11 [second deployment indicator], the wearing determination unit 21 wakes up the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 27, and the peripheral circuit 7, accordingly [i.e. transitioning from the second state to the operational state] – paragraphs 0042-0043 and 0046-0048, FIG. 3, ST4-Y, ST5, paragraph 0054, lines 7-11, paragraph 0055, lines 1-4, paragraph 0056, FIG. 4, paragraphs 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses a body-mountable electronic device comprising:
a sensor (FIG. 2 accelerometer 11) adapted to monitor for occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of the body-mountable electronic device (the accelerometer sensor monitors for acceleration and outputs the first interrupt signal S1, accordingly [i.e. monitoring for occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of a body-mountable electronic device] – paragraph 0038, lines 3-7, FIG. 3, ST1-Y, ST2, paragraph 0052, lines 1-5, paragraph 0053, lines 1-2); and
control circuitry (FIG. 2, control unit 29) enabled by the occurrence of the first deployment indicator (generating by the control unit 29 [i.e. enabling the control unit] signal S11 in response to receiving the signal outputted by the accelerator – paragraph 0038, lines 3-10, FIG. 3, ST2, paragraph 0053), the control circuitry adapted to:
transition the body-mountable electronic device from a first state to a second state (the living body measurement apparatus is switched to a mode where the living body tactile sensor 13 and wearing determination unit 21 are woken up [i.e. transition to second state] – paragraph 0038, lines 7-10, paragraph 0040, lines 10-13, FIG. 3, ST3, paragraph 0054, lines 1-7);
during the second state, monitor for occurrence of a second deployment indicator (after being woken up in response to signal S11 [ i.e. during the second state], the control unit 29 monitors for occurrence/receipt of signal S3 [second deployment indicator] – paragraph 0041, lines 4-8, paragraph 0042, lines 1-7, FIG. 3, ST4, paragraph 0054, lines 7-11, paragraph 0055); and
transition the body-mountable electronic device from the second state to an operational state responsive to the occurrence of the second deployment indicator (waking up the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 27, and the peripheral circuit 7 upon receipt of signal S3 – paragraph 0042, lines 7-11, paragraph 0046-0048, FIG. 3, ST4-Y, ST5, paragraph 0054, lines 7-11, paragraph 0055, lines 1-4, paragraph 0056, FIG. 4, paragraphs 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors to:
monitor for occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of a body-mountable electronic device (the accelerometer sensor monitors for acceleration and outputs the first interrupt signal S1, accordingly [i.e. monitoring for occurrence of a first deployment indicator indicative of deployment of a body-mountable electronic device] – paragraph 0038, lines 3-7, FIG. 3, ST1-Y, ST2, paragraph 0052, lines 1-5, paragraph 0053, lines 1-2);
in response to occurrence of the first deployment indicator,
transition a body-mountable electronic device from a first state to a second state (the living body measurement apparatus is switched to a mode where the living body tactile sensor 13 and wearing determination unit 21 are woken up [i.e. transition to second state] in response to signal S11, which is generated upon receipt of signal S1 by the control unit 29 – paragraph 0038, lines 7-10, paragraph 0040, lines 10-13, FIG. 3, ST3, paragraph 0054, lines 1-7) and
enable control circuitry (FIG. 2, control unit 29) to monitor for occurrence of a second deployment indicator (after being woken up in response to signal S11 during the second state, the control unit 29 monitors for occurrence/receipt of signal S3 [second deployment indicator] – paragraph 0041, lines 4-8, paragraph 0042, lines 1-7, FIG. 3, ST4, paragraph 0054, lines 7-11, paragraph 0055); and
in response to the occurrence of the second deployment indicator, transition the body- mountable electronic device from the second state to an operational state (waking up the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 27, and the peripheral circuit 7 upon receipt of signal S3 – paragraph 0042, lines 7-11, paragraph 0046-0048, FIG. 3, ST4-Y, ST5, paragraph 0054, lines 7-11, paragraph 0055, lines 1-4, paragraph 0056, FIG. 4, paragraphs 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus, wherein the first state consumes less power than the second state (during sleep mode [first state] the living body tactile sensor 13, the wearing determination unit 21, the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 25 and the peripheral circuit 27 are disabled vs the partial wake-up mode [second state] when the living body tactile sensor 13 and the wearing determination unit 21 are woken up and the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 25 and the peripheral circuit 27 remain disabled – paragraphs 0017 and 0045, paragraph 0054, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus as per claim 2, wherein the second state consumes less power than the operational state (during the partial wake-up mode [second state] when the living body tactile sensor 13 and the wearing determination unit 21 are woken up and the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 25 and the peripheral circuit 27 remain disabled vs full wake-up mode [operational mode] when the living body tactile sensor 13, the wearing determination unit 21, the kinematic analysis unit 23, the communication unit 25 and the peripheral circuit 27 are all enabled – paragraph 0042, lines 7-11, paragraph 0049).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Nakamura further discloses a device and a non-transitory computer readable storage media including all claim limitations of clam 3 (which includes the subject matter of claim 2 plus claim 3) addressed above.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus and non-transitory computer readable storage media, wherein the first deployment indicator comprises an acceleration event indicative of the deployment of the body-mountable electronic device (paragraph 0038, lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura further discloses the device, wherein the sensor comprises a motion sensor (an accelerometer sensor is a motion sensor by definition), and the first deployment indicator comprises an acceleration event indicative of the deployment of the body-mountable electronic device (paragraph 0038, lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus, further comprising: the control means monitoring for the occurrence of the second deployment indicator (paragraph 0042, FIG. 3, ST4, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus, further comprising: means for detecting the first deployment indicator (paragraph 0038, lines 3-10, FIG. 3, ST2, paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura further discloses the apparatus, further comprising: means for detecting the second deployment indicator (paragraph 0040, lines 4-8, FIG. 3, ST3-ST4, paragraphs 0054-0055).
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 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0324520 in view of Phidgets Inc. “Accelerometer Primer” (referred to as NPL1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5 and 19, Nakamura discloses the apparatus and non-transitory computer readable storage media as per claims 4 and 18, respectively.
Nakamura does not specifically state the acceleration event comprises a g-force that exceeds a predetermined g-force threshold.
NPL1 teaches measuring acceleration with accelerators in terms of g-force (g’s), wherein different acceleration events have corresponding g-values. Thus, properly identifying and quantifying motion with various speed characteristics (see Introduction on page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings from NPL1 with the apparatus disclosed by Nakamura in order to implement the acceleration event comprises a g-force that exceeds a predetermined g-force threshold. One of ordinary skill in art would be motivated to do so in order to properly detect the acceleration event indicative of the deployment of the body- mountable electronic device.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0324520 in view of Morita et al., US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2005/0000829.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, Nakamura discloses the apparatus, device, and non-transitory computer readable storage media, as per claims 1, 12, and 16, respectively.
In addition, Nakmura further teaches modifications and alternations for the components used in his invention (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura does not specifically state applying a voltage to a biosensor, wherein the biosensor is adapted to detect an analyte or interstitial fluid, measure a current across the biosensor, determine if the current across the biosensor exceeds a predetermined threshold, and detect the occurrence of the second deployment indicator responsive to the current across the biosensor exceeding the predetermined threshold.
Morita teaches an analyzer (FIG. 1) for analyzing the glucose level or cholesterol level in blood sample (paragraph 0001), wherein after applying voltage to the electrodes 22a and 22b of biosensor 2 (FIG. 2), the acceleration of the current across the electrodes is measured, and when it is determined that the measured current acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold, validating the sufficiency of the blood sample for analysis (paragraphs 0013-0015, 0017, 0020, 0022-0023, FIG. 1, paragraph 0039-0040, FIG(6-7), paragraphs 0048, paragraph 0049, lines 1-5). Morita further teaches the processor 3 coupled with the biosensor 2, for processing the measured blood sample data (i.e. the biosensor is operably coupled with the control circuitry and adapted to detect an analyte or interstitial fluid – FIG. 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0039). Thus, ensuring accurate sample analysis (Abstract, paragraphs 0003, 0007, and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above-described analyzer and functionality, as suggested by Morita with the device disclosed by Nakamura in order to implement applying a voltage to a biosensor, wherein the biosensor is adapted to detect an analyte or interstitial fluid, measure a current across the biosensor, determine if the current across the biosensor exceeds a predetermined threshold, and detect the occurrence of the second deployment indicator responsive to the current across the biosensor exceeding the predetermined threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure accurate sample analysis.
The limitations of claim 7 are included in claim 15 – i.e. the second deployment indicator comprises an indication that a measured electrical current matches a preset pattern or exceeds a predetermined threshold value. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected by the combination of Nakamura and Morita, addressed above.
The limitations of claim 20 are included in claim 15 – i.e. detecting the occurrence of the second deployment indicator when an electrical current measured across a biosensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value. Morita also teaches the biosensor is operably coupled with the control circuitry and adapted to detect an analyte or interstitial fluid as indicated previously (FIG. 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0039). Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected by the combination of Nakamura and Morita, addressed above.
Claims 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al., US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0324520 in view of Yeh, US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0055387.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses the apparatus, as per claim 1. In addition, Nakmura further teaches modifications and alternations for the components used in his invention (paragraph 0070).
Nakamura does not specifically state the second deployment indicator comprises a gesture pattern in motion signals outputted by the motion sensor.
Yeh teaches detecting motion status, including the movement, speed, and orientation of portable electronic device held by user, based on signal outputted by a motion sensor (i.e. gesture pattern in motion signals), and further determining whether the motion status for matches a predetermined motion status in order to switch the electronic device from power-saving mode to identification mode (paragraph 0010, FIG(s) 4-5, paragraphs 0045-0047, paragraph 0048, lines 1-6, FIG. 7, S703, S705-Yes, S707, S709, paragraph 0062-0063, paragraph 0064, lines 1-4) . Accordingly, the electronic device is unlocked automatically, thus, providing convenience for the user (paragraph 0002, paragraph 0005, lines 1-6, paragraph 00006, lines 2-3, paragraph 0011, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the above-described device and functionality, as suggested by Yeh with the apparatus disclosed by Nakamura in order to implement the second deployment indicator comprises a gesture pattern in motion signals outputted by the motion sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to provide conveniently transition to the operational state upon detection of the second deployment indicator.
Regarding claim 9, Yeh further teaches the apparatus, as per claim 8, wherein the gesture pattern comprises a pattern of body mountable electronic device movements, a pattern of rotations, a pattern of taps, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 0046-0047).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN STOYNOV whose telephone number is (571)272-4236. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/STEFAN STOYNOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights