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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 5, the limitation “The dehydration notification system according to claim 3 comprising” should read “The dehydration notification system according to claim 3, comprising”.
In re claim 6, the limitation “selected from a group including A, B, and C below.” Should read “selected from a group including A, B, and C below:”. See MPEP 608.01(m), a period should only be located at the end of the claim unless a part of an abbreviation.
In re claim 6, the limitation “Function C) a function that determines a method of the notification based on the primary data and/or the secondary data” should read “Function C) a function that determines a method of the notification based on the primary data and/or the secondary data.” See MPEP 608.01 (m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”.
In re claim 10, see above Claim Objections, In re claim 6, substantially the same reasoning applies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In re claim 1,
One or more types of measuring units that perform one or more types of measurement selected from the group consisting of
an informing unit that makes notifications
In re claim 3,
a determining unit that derives the notification from the measurement data
In re claim 4,
the determining unit derives one type of a notification from two or more types of measurement data
In re claim 5,
two or more types of the determining units wherein
at least two types of the determining units respectively derive notifications different from each other from one type of common measurement data
In re claim 6,
the determining unit includes one or more types of functions selected from a group including A, B, and C below.
Function A) a function that converts primary data being measurement data of the measuring unit into secondary data serving as an evaluation index of a dehydration symptom
Function B) a function that detects a sign of a dehydration symptom from a determination reference stored in advance, and the primary data and/or the secondary data
Function C) a function that determines a method of the notification based on the primary data and/or the secondary data
In re claim 9,
a holding unit that stores the measurement data
In re claim 12,
the measuring unit is a unit that measures a content rate of blood hemoglobin and/or a unit that measures an NaCI concentration in sweat
In re claim 13,
the measuring unit is a unit that measures one or more types selected from a group including a blood vasopressin concentration, a urine specific gravity, a urine osmotic pressure, and a urine volume
In re claim 14,
the measuring unit is a moisture measuring unit that uses a bioelectric impedance analysis method and/or a unit that measures a hematocrit value
In re claim 15,
the measuring unit acquires eating-and-drinking information including an intake amount) and/or exercise information (Fig. 6: examines perspiration amount along with exercise
In re claim 16,
the measuring unit acquires one or more types of information selected from a group including a water intake amount, an intake habit of food and drink having a diuretic effect, an exercise habit, and an exercise experience.
In re claim 17,
the measuring unit acquires supplied water amount information
In re claim 18,
the measuring unit acquires information including one or more types selected from a group including a gender, an age, a BMI, and a body composition.
In re claim 19,
wherein the measuring unit acquires information including one or more types selected from a group including a season, a temperature, a humidity, and a heat index (WBGT).
In re claim 20,
a measuring unit that performs two or more types of measurement
an informing unit that makes notifications
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.
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 1-20 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.
In re claim 1, the limitation "the measurement" on line 11 has insufficient antecedent basis in this claim. This could refer to the one or more types of measuring units, the one or more types of measurement, specifically one of the one or more types of measurement as a measurement has not been previously recited in the claim. For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification as meaning “which are obtained from the one or more types of measurement”.
In re claim 5, the limitation “the determining units” on line 1 has insufficient antecedent basis in this claim as multiple determining units has not been previously recited.
In re claim 6, the limitation “the primary data and/or the secondary data” on line 6 and 7-8 lacks antecedent basis as the Functions B and C are separate from Function A. As Function A does not need to take occur (“determining unit includes one or more types of functions selected from a group including A, B, and C”) and Function B and C are able to occur separately from Function A, Functions B and C do not depend on the limitations in Function A.
In re claim 8, the limitation “a determination reference of the B)” is unclear. The limitation suggests that it is further limiting one of a plurality of determination references, however only one determination reference has been recited prior to this claim. For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification as meaning “the determination reference of the B)”.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Momose (WO 2021106654).
In re claim 1, Momose discloses a dehydration notification system (Fig. 1) comprising:
One or more types of measuring units (Fig. 1: 1-17 and 22; pg. 1, ln. 56-59, pg. 2, ln. 1-3; pg. 3, ln. 13-36; note: sweat meter, sensors, and input device that provide measurements to arithmetic unit) that perform one or more types of measurement selected from the group consisting of
water loss amount variation factor measurement,
water loss amount measurement (Pg. 2, ln. 4: “water loss amount”),
body influence measurement,
body water amount measurement,
supplied water amount measurement (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount),
body feature measurement, and
lifestyle measurement; and
an informing unit (20) that makes notifications
being two or more types of notifications (Pg. 2, ln. 7-14: “a level display and/or a warning display”) that are derived from two or more types of measurement data selected from the group consisting of
water loss amount variation factor measurement data,
water loss amount measurement data (Pg. 2, ln. 4 “water loss amount”),
body influence measurement data,
body water amount measurement data,
supplied water amount measurement data,
body feature measurement data (Pg. 2, ln. 3; “inputting weight data”), and
lifestyle measurement data,
which are obtained from the measurement (Pg. 2, ln. 2-9; pg. 6, ln. 39), and
being notifications related to a dehydration symptom (Pg. 2, ln. 5-14).
In re claim 2, Momose discloses wherein the notification is selected from a group including
a notification related to an action for avoiding an occurrence of a dehydration symptom and/or alleviating a symptom of the dehydration symptom (Pg. 5, ln. 17-19; pg. 6, ln. 35: warning display; Tables 1 and 2),
a notification related to a degree of risk that a dehydration symptom occurs (Pg. 6, ln. 35: “level display”; Tables 1 and 2, numbers in third column), and
a notification related to severity of a dehydration symptom (Pg. 6, ln. 35: “level display”; Tables 1 and 2).
In re claim 3, Momose discloses further comprising a determining unit (Fig. 1: 19; pg. 2, ln. 1-4: part of “arithmetic unit” that selects a level display) that derives the notification from the measurement data (Pg. 5, ln. 25-26: “The arithmetic unit 19 can select a level display and / or a warning display corresponding to the 36 calculation result from the data”).
In re claim 4, Momose discloses wherein the determining unit derives one type of a notification from two or more types of measurement data (Tables 1 and 2; pg. 2, ln. 1-4; pg. 6, ln. 3-5: “the water loss rate (%) is calculated from the accumulated water loss amount (mg) and the body weight data”; note: level display is chosen based on these two types of data).
In re claim 5, Momose discloses comprising two or more types of the determining units (Pg. 2, ln. 4-10: part of arithmetic unit that determines “warning display” and part of arithmetic unit that determines “level display”), wherein at least two types of the determining units respectively derive notifications different from each other from one type of common measurement data (Tables 1 and 2: warning display (or means) and level display are determined based on moisture reduction rate which is from the water loss amount; Pg. 5, ln. 6-12, pg. 6, ln. 1-7).
In re claim 6, Momose discloses wherein the determining unit includes one or more types of functions selected from a group including A, B, and C below.
Function A) a function that converts primary data being measurement data of the measuring unit into secondary data (Pg. 2, ln. 3: “water loss rate”) serving as an evaluation index of a dehydration symptom (Tables 1 and 2: water loss rate is used to evaluate the level of dehydration)
Function B) a function that detects a sign of a dehydration symptom from a determination reference stored in advance (Tables 1 and 2), and the primary data and/or the secondary data (Pg. 2, ln. 3: “water loss rate”)
Function C) a function that determines a method of the notification based on the primary data and/or the secondary data (Tables 1 and 2: determines warning or level display, i.e. notification, based on water loss rate)
In re claim 7, Momose discloses wherein the method determined in the C) includes one or more types selected from a group including
notification timing (inherent),
a notification method (tautological, see 35 U.S.C. rejection, In re claim 6),
a notification item (inherent), and
notification intensity.
In re claim 8, Momose discloses wherein a determination reference of the B) is in that measurement data to be acquired from a biosensor (Fig. 1: sweat meter 1 with humidity sensors 16 and 8; pg. 3, ln. 13-36: “humidity sensor, an impedance sensor, an optical sensor, a mass sensor, a volume sensor, a color sensor, a heat / temperature sensor, a camera, and the like”) that acquires one or more types of measurement information selected from a group including
an activity amount (Fig. 6: examines perspiration amount along with exercise (i.e. activity level) /rest time and body-weight measurement; pg. 6, ln. 22-52),
a heart rate,
a blood pressure,
an oxygen intake amount,
a respiratory rate,
a deep body temperature,
a skin temperature,
a skin impedance (Pg. 3, ln. 3: “electrically measures the impedance of the skin”),
a perspiration amount (Pg. 3, ln. 53-57), and
a blood flow rate
remains high (pg. 6, ln. 22-52: when exercise (i.e. activity level) is high, the sweat level (i.e. perspiration amount” is expected to remain high which would suggest an increased water loss amount (i.e. dehydration level); Fig. 6 and 7).
In re claim 9, Momose discloses a holding unit (Fig.1: storage unit 18; pg. 5, ln. 14-19) that stores the measurement data (Pg. 6: ln. 4-5), wherein the determination reference is derived using the measurement data stored in the holding unit (Pg. 6, ln. 1-7).
In re claim 10, Momose discloses a wherein the measuring unit is any one selected from a group including (A) to (D) below.
(A) a perspiration sensor (Fig. 3A: 1) including one or more types of sensors (101A) that measure an amount of body water to be generated from a skin surface (pg. 3, ln. 10-20), and one or more types of evaporation promotion mechanisms that prompt evaporation (102; pg. 3: 14-15)
(B) a perspiration sensor (Fig. 4: 1) including two or more types of sensors (101A, 101B) that measure an amount of body water to be generated from a skin surface (pg. 3, ln. 44-45)
(C) a perspiration sensor (Fig. 5: 1) including one or more types of sensors (101B) that measure an amount of body water to be generated from a skin surface, a moisture-proof mechanism, and a discharge unit of a liquid (Fig. 5; pg. 3, ln. 59-60)
(D) a perspiration sensor (Fig. 1: 1) including:
a housing capsule (Fig, 1: 3) including an opening portion (2) to be attached to a skin surface (Pg. 4, ln. 9-10),
the housing capsule including
an air suction hole (4) for sucking natural air into an inside of the housing capsule (Pg. 4, ln. 10),
a mixture chamber (5) that communicates with the opening portion to diffuse sweat on the skin surface (Pg. 4, ln. 11-12), and
in which the diffused sweat and the natural air are mixed to become mixed air (Pg. 4, ln. 12), and
an air discharge hole (6) for discharging the mixed air from the mixture chamber (Pg. 4, ln. 13);
a first humidity sensor (7) for measuring humidity of the natural air (Pg. 4, ln. 13-15); and
a second humidity sensor (8) for measuring humidity of the mixed air (Pg. 4, ln. 53-54)
In re claim 11, Momose discloses wherein
the measuring unit is a biosensor (Fig. 1: sweat meter 1 with humidity sensors 16 and 8; pg. 3, ln. 13-36: “humidity sensor, an impedance sensor, an optical sensor, a mass sensor, a volume sensor, a color sensor, a heat / temperature sensor, a camera, and the like” to be used by being worn to a body; pg. 6, ln. 34-35, 49-50) and
the biosensor acquires one or more types of measurement information selected from a group including
an activity amount of the body (Fig. 6: examines perspiration amount along with exercise (i.e. activity level) /rest time and body-weight measurement; pg. 6, ln. 22-52),
a heart rate,
a pulse wave,
a blood pressure,
an oxygen intake amount,
a respiratory rate,
a deep body temperature,
a skin temperature,
a skin impedance (Pg. 3, ln. 3: “electrically measures the impedance of the skin”),
a perspiration amount (Pg. 3, ln. 53-57), and
a blood flow rate.
In re claim 14, Momose discloses wherein the measuring unit is a moisture measuring unit that uses a bioelectric impedance analysis method (Pg. 3, ln. 3: “electrically measures the impedance of the skin”) and/or a unit that measures a hematocrit value.
In re claim 16, Momose discloses wherein the measuring unit acquires one or more types of information selected from a group including
a water intake amount (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount),
an intake habit of food and drink having a diuretic effect,
an exercise habit, and
an exercise experience.
In re claim 17, Momose discloses wherein the measuring unit acquires supplied water amount information (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount).
In re claim 19, Momose discloses wherein the measuring unit acquires information including one or more types selected from a group including
a season,
a temperature (Pg. 4, ln. 49-51: “temperature sensor”),
a humidity (Pg. 4, ln. 49-51: humidity sensor for measuring the humidity of the natural air taken from the intake hole), and
a heat index (WBGT).
In re claim 20, Momose discloses dehydration notification system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a measuring unit (Fig. 1: 1-17 and 22 connecting to CPU; pg. 1, ln. 56-59, pg. 2, ln. 1-3: sweat meter and input device that provide measurements to arithmetic unit) that performs two or more types of measurement selected from the group consisting of
water loss amount variation factor measurement,
water loss amount measurement,
body influence measurement,
body water amount measurement,
supplied water amount measurement (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount),
body feature measurement (Pg. 2, ln. 3; “inputting weight data”), and
lifestyle measurement; and
an informing unit (20) that makes notifications
being one or more types of notifications (Pg. 2, ln. 7-14: “a level display and/or a warning display”) that are derived from two or more types of measurement data selected from the group consisting of
water loss amount variation factor measurement data,
water loss amount measurement data,
body influence measurement data,
body water amount measurement data,
supplied water amount measurement data (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount; note: water intake amount is used to determine a notification if water loss exceeds water intake amount),
body feature measurement data (Pg. 2, ln. 3; “inputting weight data”; note: weight is used to calculate a water loss rate), and
lifestyle measurement data,
which are obtained from the two or more types of the measurement (Pg. 2, ln. 3 and pg. 6, ln. 6-14), and
being notifications related to a dehydration symptom (Pg. 2, ln. 5-14).
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose (WO 2021106654) in view of Heikenfeld (US 20180153451).
In re claim 12, Momose lacks wherein the measuring unit is a unit that measures a content rate of blood hemoglobin and/or a unit that measures an NaCI concentration in sweat.
Heikenfeld discloses a device for sweat sensing (abstract) that, like the dehydration notification system disclosed by Momose, determined an individual’s dehydration state (abstract; [0088-0089]) and has outputs describing dehydration (i.e. notifications related to a dehydration symptom; [0081-0082]). In addition, Heikenfeld discloses determining NaCl concentrations in sweat [0062-0066, 0070].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stimulation device disclosed by Momose by providing wherein the measuring unit is a unit that measures an NaCl concentration in swear as taught by Heikenfeld because the NaCl concentrations provide an approximate sweat rate (Heikenfeld: [0070-0072]), which further allows the device to determine the hydration state of an individual (Heikenfeld: [0089]) as dehydration and loss of body water causes an increase in NaCl and as Na+ and Cl- are the most abundant ions in sweat (Heikenfeld: [0067, 0069, 0082]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose (WO 2021106654) in view of Hyde (US 20160213316).
In re claim 13, Momose lacks wherein the measuring unit is a unit that measures one or more types selected from a group including
a blood vasopressin concentration,
a urine specific gravity,
a urine osmotic pressure, and
a urine volume.
Hyde discloses a device for hydration monitoring (abstract) that, like the dehydration notification system disclosed by Momose, determines the hydration state of the user (abstract) by measuring parameters of hydration [0155] and reports the hydration state of the user to the user (i.e. notification; [0094]). In addition, Hyde discloses wherein the hydration is measured from urine specific gravity, volume, osmolality, color, and other analysis [0083-0085, 0310, 0314].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stimulation device disclosed by Momose by providing wherein the hydration is measured from urine specific gravity, volume, osmolality, color, and other analysis as taught by Hyde because these are values that can be correlated with reference hydration states to easily determine the hydration state of the user by comparing with stored personalized reference hydration states and an increase in urine specific gravity can be associated with dehydration or excessive sweating (Hyde: [0083]).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose (WO 2021106654) in view of Chen (US 20230355174).
In re claim 15, Momose discloses wherein the measuring unit acquires eating-and-drinking information including an intake amount (Pg 6, ln. 6-14: user provides measurement unit with water intake amount) and/or exercise information (Fig. 6: examines perspiration amount along with exercise (i.e. activity level) /rest time and body-weight measurement; pg. 6, ln. 22-52).
Momose lacks:
wherein the measuring unit acquires eating-and-drinking information including an intake amount and a frequency of food and drink having a diuretic effect and/or
exercise information including an exercise habit and an exercise experience.
Chen discloses a device for tracking hydration of a user (abstract) that, like the dehydration notification system disclosed by Momose, determines the hydration level of a user based on a measurement (abstract, [0028-0029]) and displays an indication of hydration level (i.e. a notification). In addition, Chen discloses wherein the device tracks intake of drink and/or food and determines if the food has diuretic or anti-diuretic properties [0129, 0157-0158] and determining the consumption rate of the user [0028, 0130] and Chen discloses having different target hydration thresholds depending on an activity (i.e. exercise experience) threshold of the user [0160], and taking levels of exercise, exertion, and a user’s regular exertion levels (i.e. exercise habits), into account for determining hydration [0023, 0091, 0096].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stimulation device disclosed by Momose by providing wherein the consumption rate of a user is determined and the intake of drink and/or food with diuretic or anti-diuretic properties is determined and wherein the user’s regular exertion levels and exercise/activity levels are used to determine personalized ideal hydration levels/threshold for the user as taught by Chen because diuretics can dehydrate the body while anti-diuretics would provide hydration, and so the type of drink/beverage consumed would allow the device to better estimate the hydration level of the user (Chen: [0029, 0050, 0094-0095]) and exercise and user’s regular exertion levels may control how much liquid intake that user needs and that the ideal hydration level may vary depending on levels of exercise, exertion, and regular exertion levels (Chen: [0091, 0096, 0160]), both allowing the device to determine if the user needs to consume more fluids if dehydrated (Chen: [0050, 0160]).
In re claim 18, Momose lacks wherein the measuring unit acquires information including one or more types selected from a group including
a gender,
an age,
a BMI, and
a body composition.
Chen discloses a device for tracking hydration of a user (abstract) that, like the dehydration notification system disclosed by Momose, determines the hydration level of a user based on a measurement (abstract, [0028-0029]) and displays an indication of hydration level (i.e. a notification). In addition, Chen discloses wherein the hydration level is determined in part by a baseline consumption rate and a minimum and maximum hydration level thresholds of a user, wherein the baseline consumption rate and thresholds are user specific based on age, weight, sex (i.e. gender), medical condition, and other personal health characteristics of the user [0079, 0092, 0160] and discloses considering a user’s body composition when determining hydration level [0091-0092].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stimulation device disclosed by Momose by providing wherein the hydration level is determined in part based on or based on factors determined by age, weight, sex, medical condition, personal health characteristics, and body composition of a user as taught by Chen because an ideal hydration level may be based on factors age, gender, and weight, for example, ideal hydration for women and men based on the percentage of total body weight (Chen: [0023]), and age, sex, weight, or health conditions can influence an initial baseline consumption rate which influenced hydration determination (Chen: [0079]), and because the more body fat that makes up a user’s body weight, the less water per pound that user needs for optimal hydration and leads to more customized hydration level for a user (Chen: [0091-0092]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Heikenfeld (US 20190029654) discloses a method of collecting and sensing a biofluid with enhanced concentration of analytes that monitors dehydration by examining the concentration of vasopressin in sweat [0079].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALLE M WELCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David E Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/HALLE MARGARET WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights