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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected detecting system and a thermal stress monitoring method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/06/2026.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 limitation "the user" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the difference" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “and/or” renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear if the associated limitations in the claims are inclusively required or merely recited in the alternative. For the sake of claim interpretation, it is assumed that the list is inclusive and has the same interpretation as “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the difference" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolaescu et al. (US 2007/0239038 A1) in view of Tokko et al. (US 2011/0282220 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) teach a thermal stress monitoring system (Fig. 3, monitoring system 300; [0013]), the system comprising: at least one wearable sensor (see Fig. 3, sensor 302) adapted to be placed on a human subject (see Fig. 3, sensor 30s is adapted to be placed on a human subject; [0072]), a processing subsystem (see Fig. 3, signal conditioner 304; [0072]) configured to receive the output signals (see Fig. 3, signal conditioner 304 receives output signals; [0072]). Nicolaescu et al. fails to disclose the elements of the at least one wearable sensor sensitive to changes in spontaneous blood volume oscillations and configured to generate output signals; and a processing subsystem configured to measure baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when a user is not exposed to a thermal stress environment. However, Tokko et al. (‘220) from the same field of endeavor do teach at least one wearable sensor sensitive to changes in spontaneous blood volume oscillations and configured to generate output signals (see [0063]) and a processing subsystem configured to measure baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when a user is not exposed to a thermal stress environment to measure the exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when the user is exposed to the thermal stress environment (see [0063]). The resulting combination of Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. would determine a thermal stress injury based on changes in the measured exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations from the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the invention of Nicolaescu et al. with the features of Tokko et al. for the benefit of more robust cardiovascular analytics by removing unnecessary fluctuations.
Regarding claim 2, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 1 in which the changes in the measured exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations from the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations are determined by evaluating the difference between the measured exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations and the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations (see Tokko et al. [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 2 in which the difference between the measured exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations and the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations includes one or more comparisons that utilize time domain differences, frequency domain differences, or both (see Tokko et al. [0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 1 in which the at least one wearable sensor includes at least one photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor, at least one bioimpedance analysis (BIA) sensor, and/or at least one ballistocardiography (BCG) sensor (see Nicolaescu et al. [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 1 in which the at least one wearable sensor includes at least one light source configured to emit light at one or more predetermined wavelengths associated with spontaneous blood volume oscillations into tissue of the human subject and at least one detector configured to detect reflected light at the one or more predetermined wavelengths associated with the spontaneous blood volume oscillations and generate the output signals (see Nicolaescu et al. [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) teach a thermal stress monitoring system (Fig. 3, monitoring system 300; para. [0013]), the system comprising: at least one baseline wearable sensor (Fig. 3, sensors 302, 310; para. [0072]) adapted to be placed on a core area of a user (Fig. 3, sensors 302, 310 arc adapted to be placed on a core arca of a user; para. [0072]), and a processing subsystem (Fig. 3, signal conditioner 304; para. [0072]) configured to receive the baseline output signals (Fig. 3, signal conditioner 304 receives output signals; para. [0072]). Nicolaescu et al. fails to disclose the elements of the at least one wearable sensor sensitive to changes in spontaneous blood volume oscillations and configured to generate output signals; and a processing subsystem configured to measure baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when a user is not exposed to a thermal stress environment. However, Tokko et al. (‘220) from the same field of endeavor do teach at least one wearable sensor sensitive to changes in spontaneous blood volume oscillations and configured to generate output signals (see [0063]) and a processing subsystem configured to measure baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when a user is not exposed to a thermal stress environment to measure the exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations at a time when the user is exposed to the thermal stress environment (see [0063]). The resulting combination of Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. would determine a thermal stress injury based on changes in the measured exposed spontaneous blood volume oscillations from the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the invention of Nicolaescu et al. with the features of Tokko et al. for the benefit of more robust cardiovascular analytics by removing unnecessary fluctuations.
Regarding claim 7, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 6 in which the changes in the measured peripheral spontaneous blood volume oscillations from the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations are determined by evaluating the difference between the measured peripheral spontaneous blood volume oscillations and the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations (see Tokko et al. [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 7 in which the difference between the measured peripheral spontaneous blood volume oscillations and the measured baseline spontaneous blood volume oscillations includes one or more comparisons that utilize time domain differences, frequency domain differences, or both (see Tokko et al. [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 7 in which the at least one wearable baseline sensor is adapted to be placed on a core area of the user (see Nicolaescu et al. [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Nicolaescu et al. (‘038) in view of Tokko et al. (‘220) teach the system of claim 6 in which the at least one wearable baseline sensor generates at least one reference signal to be used by the processing subsystem to improve the accuracy of the determined thermal stress injury (see Nicolaescu et al. [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK REMALY whose telephone number is (571)270-1491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/MARK D REMALY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights