DETAILED ACTION
It is noted that claims 5 and 18 have the incorrect status indicator of “Currently amended” which should be “original”.
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 Apr. 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “said housing” should be changed to --the housing-- in line 5. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: pg 6, ln. 30 “Figs. 4 and 5” should be changed to --Figs. 5 and 6--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “the tube is of dielectric material only” should be changed to --the tube is made of dielectric material only--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “an area the rim surface section” should be changed to -- an area of the rim surface section --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: “said device comprises” should be changed to -- said device further comprises --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 15, 18, 19-21 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 6 recites the limitation "the mesh" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the mesh” will be interpreted as “the elastic net”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “sensors of the apparatus are arranged in the device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “sensors”. For the purposes of examination “sensors” will be interpreted as “a plurality of sensors”.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “the device” is confusing. It is not clear if “the device” refers to the vital signs monitoring apparatus or the vital signs monitoring device of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “the device” will be interpreted as “the vital signs monitoring device”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the outer surface” will be interpreted as “the closed outer surface”.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation of “parallel to each other with an accuracy of 15˚” is confusing, if the top and bottom sections are parallel they cannot be different from even a degree. For the purposes of examination, “parallel to each other with an accuracy of 15˚” will be interpreted as “approximately parallel to each other with an accuracy of 15˚”.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the bottom section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the bottom section” will be interpreted as “a bottom section”.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I) “If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation the second wall section is thinner than the first wall section, and the claim also recites in particular by at least 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “the second wall section is thinner than the first wall section”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 7-9, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid (US 20190262188 A1, published Aug. 29, 2019, previously cited on the Apr. 21, 2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as “Reid”).
Regarding claim 1, Reid teaches a wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus comprising a vital-signs-monitoring device (Fig. 3 “sleeve-wrap compression system 10” ¶[0094], Fig. 11-21 “body monitoring system 110” ¶[0151], Fig. 12-21 “body compression monitoring system 130” ¶[0153], and Fig. 22-27 “compression and sensing system 200” ¶[0226]) having a housing (Fig. 21 “means for housing the transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225. Such housing means can provide protection against contamination of the transmission circuit connection points 226 and data processor/display unit 225 from wound drainage or other sources” ¶[0253]) and monitoring electronics (Fig. 20 “electrical sensor circuit 120” ¶[0204] and Fig. 21 “transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225” ¶[0253]) arranged in said housing (Fig. 21 “means for housing the transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225. Such housing means can provide protection against contamination of the transmission circuit connection points 226 and data processor/display unit 225 from wound drainage or other sources” ¶[0253]), and an attachment tube (Fig. 1 “sleeve layer 12” ¶[0094], “sleeve 142” ¶[0176]) of an elastic material (“The sleeve 12 is designed to be slid over a patient's limb 20… The sleeve layer 12 can be fabricated with a variety of materials suitable for application on the skin and for providing compressive pressure. In preferred embodiments, the sleeve layer 12 comprises spandex in combination with nylon, acrylic, polyester, and/or cotton.” ¶[0096]) forming a closed loop (“tubular sleeve” ¶[0096]), wherein, in annular configuration, without elastic deformation, said loop has an inner maximum diameter of less than 8 cm (“the sleeve-wrap compression system 10 can advantageously provide the same change in compressive pressure across various degrees of stretching on limbs having different sizes… the same compression garment would apply a different amount of compressive pressure to a limb having a 12-inch circumference than to a limb having a 7-inch circumference” ¶[0128]; in order to provide pressure to such limb that is 7 inches, the tube must have a non-stretched circumference of less than 7 inches and 7/π =2.23 inch = 5.67 cm), and under elastic deformation, the inner diameter of the loop is extendible by at least 2 cm (in ¶[0128] the same compression garment is used for a 12 in limb meaning the tube must have a stretched circumference of at least 12 inches in order to slid over this limb; 12 inch circumference means the diameter is 12/π = 3.82 inches = 9.70 cm; and 9.70-5.67 is greater than 2 cm).
Regarding claim 2, Reid teaches in annular configuration, without elastic deformation, said loop has an inner diameter of less than 6 cm (“the sleeve-wrap compression system 10 can advantageously provide the same change in compressive pressure across various degrees of stretching on limbs having different sizes… the same compression garment would apply a different amount of compressive pressure to a limb having a 12-inch circumference than to a limb having a 7-inch circumference” ¶[0128]; in order to provide pressure to such limb that is 7 inches, the tube must have a non-stretched circumference of less than 7 inches and 7/π =2.23 inch = 5.67 cm which is less than 6 cm).
Regarding claim 7, Reid teaches wherein, without elastic deformation and in annular configuration, said loop has an axial length of at least 4 cm (“FIG. 1 shows the sleeve 12 in place on a patient's lower leg 20. The sleeve 12 is designed to be slid over a patient's limb 20, such as over a foot 21, toe 22, instep 23, heel 24, ankle 25, and calf 26, or over a hand and arm. Various embodiments of the sleeve 12 can be configured to cover different lengths of a limb 20. Typically, a lower limb sleeve 12 can extend from the foot 21 to just below the wearer's knee 27.” ¶[0096] axial length would therefore be much greater than 4 cm if the length spans from the foot to the knee).
Regarding claim 8, Reid teaches without any active adhesive arranged at an outer side of the housing (this is apparent as the housing in Reid shown in Fig. 21 contains an outer side that is not connected to anything and there is nothing in the prior art at suggests there is a glue being used here).
Regarding claim 9, Reid teaches wherein an axial stiffness of compression of the tube along a central axis of the tube is larger than a radial stiffness of expansion of the tube (“the sleeve 12 comprises a construction that permits horizontal stretch 40 with minimal vertical, or longitudinal, stretch 42“ ¶[0105]).
Regarding claim 11, Reid teaches wherein the attachment tube forms a closed, continuous loop (“The sleeve layer 12 of the sleeve-wrap compression system 10 can be made in a seamless manner” ¶[0097]) and in annular configuration, under elastic deformation, the inner diameter of the loop is extendible by at least 4 cm (“the sleeve-wrap compression system 10 can advantageously provide the same change in compressive pressure across various degrees of stretching on limbs having different sizes… the same compression garment would apply a different amount of compressive pressure to a limb having a 12-inch circumference than to a limb having a 7-inch circumference” ¶[0128]; in order to provide pressure to such limb that is 7 inches, the tube must have a non-stretched circumference of less than 7 inches and 7/π =2.23 inch = 5.67 cm; since the same compression garment is used for a 12 in limb the tube must have a stretched circumference of at least 12 inches in order to slid over this limb; 12 inch circumference means the diameter is 12/π = 3.82 inches = 9.70 cm; and 9.70-5.67 is greater than 4 cm).
Regarding claim 12, Reid teaches wherein the attachment tube comprises a ribbon with first and second ends (54a, 54b) and a lock mechanism adapted and structured to attach the first and second ends (54a, 54b), thereby forming said loop from the ribbon (Fig. 2 “the wrap 14 can comprise a material in which at least the exterior surface has one portion of a hook-and-loop type fastener that is engagable with a mating portion of such a fastener. In this way, after the wrap 14 is applied, it can be secured to itself with one or more strips of a mating portion of the hook-and-loop type fastener. The hoop-and-loop fastening capability is advantageous for securing the wrap 14, as opposed to metal clips that can be uncomfortably bulky or tape that is susceptible to slippage from moisture. When the hook-and-loop fastening enabled wrap 14 is being applied onto a patient's limb, one overlapping portion of the wrap 14 is adhered to another underlapping portion 14. In this way, the wrap 14 can be secured onto itself about the anatomical contours of the limb 20, such as about a patient's heel 24” ¶[0111]).
Regarding claim 15, Reid teaches wherein all sensors of the apparatus are arranged in the device (“the sensor can be a knitted-in sensor circuit 120” ¶[0175] this is contained within device 110).
Regarding claim 16, Reid teaches wherein the tube is of dielectric material only (“The sleeve layer 12 can be fabricated with a variety of materials suitable for application on the skin and for providing compressive pressure. In preferred embodiments, the sleeve layer 12 comprises spandex in combination with nylon, acrylic, polyester, and/or cotton” ¶[0096]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Reid teaches a vital-signs-monitoring device (Fig. 3 “sleeve-wrap compression system 10” ¶[0094], Fig. 11-21 “body monitoring system 110” ¶[0151], Fig. 12-21 “body compression monitoring system 130” ¶[0153], and Fig. 22-27 “compression and sensing system 200” ¶[0226]) comprising monitoring electronics (42 - 48) (Fig. 20 “electrical sensor circuit 120” ¶[0204] and Fig. 21 “transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225” ¶[0253]; “sensor 220” ¶[0226]) and a housing for the monitoring electronics (42 - 48) (Fig. 21 “means for housing the transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225. Such housing means can provide protection against contamination of the transmission circuit connection points 226 and data processor/display unit 225 from wound drainage or other sources” ¶[0253]), wherein the housing has a closed outer surface (Fig. 21 “means for housing the transmission circuit connection points 226 and/or the data processor/display unit 225. Such housing means can provide protection against contamination of the transmission circuit connection points 226 and data processor/display unit 225 from wound drainage or other sources” ¶[0253]) that is convex everywhere (“the sensor interface extender can comprise an alteration in the surface of the sensor. For example, the shape of the sensor surface can be altered to extend slightly upward, such as in a convex manner to interface with the overlying compression fabric” ¶[0243]; “the sensor 220 can be located either (a) between the body and the sleeve 12, 142” ¶[0230] and “The printed sensor circuit 152 can be placed against a body area to sense a variable. The sensor circuit material 150 and the printed sensor circuit 152 thereon can comprise a variety of shapes and/or dimensions. As a result, the printed sensor circuit 152 can be placed at various locations on a body while being connected to the transmission pathway circuit 116 in the wearable device 140. In this way, the printed sensor circuit 152 can be utilized to sense variables at particular locations in/on the body without having to vary the pathway of the transmission circuit 116.” ¶[0207] So therefore the outer surface facing away from the body area of the user when the sensor circuit is placed against the leg).
Claims 1, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Connor (US 20150309535 A1, published Oct. 29, 2015, previously cited on the Apr. 21, 2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as “Connor”).
Regarding claim 1, Connor teaches a wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus comprising a vital-signs-monitoring device having a housing and monitoring electronics arranged in said housing, and an attachment tube (“FIG. 4 shows an example of a wearable computing device for the wrist and/or arm comprising: arcuate display members 401 and 402; kidney-shaped housing 403; data control unit 404; sensor 405; and attachment member 406.” ¶[0193]) of an elastic material (“attachment member 406 can be stretchable, elastic, or expandable. In an example, attachment member 406 can comprise stretchable or elastic fabric or a series of expandable links. In an example, attachment member 406 can be stretched or expanded to a sufficiently-large circumference that it can be slipped over a person's hand onto the person's wrist and/or arm.” ¶[0197]) forming a closed loop (“attachment member 406 spans the entire circumference of a person's wrist and/or arm.” ¶[0196]), wherein, in annular configuration, without elastic deformation, said loop has an inner maximum diameter of less than 8 cm (8* π = 25.13 cm diameter; the average wrist is smaller than this value and therefore, the loop is inherently less than 8cm in diameter to span the wearer’s wrist), and under elastic deformation, the inner diameter of the loop is extendible by at least 2 cm (a person’s hand is inherently larger than 2 cm in diameter larger than the wrist and therefore, in order for the closed loop to expand sufficiently large enough to slip over their hand, this would be inherent).
Regarding claim 13, Connor teaches wherein said tube comprises an opening wherein the device is located partially within the tube, with part of the device extending through the opening (“the attachment member can comprise an elastic, stretchable, and/or flexible mesh with circular openings into which one or more display modules are inserted” ¶[0534]).
Regarding claim 14, Connor teaches further comprising a frame surrounding the opening, with said frame having a higher stiffness than any tube material surrounding the frame (“the attachment member can be a flexible mesh with a plurality of rigid, but flexibly-connected, circular parts to which modular electronic components can be removably attached” ¶[0533]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Connor teaches the wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus of claim 1. Connor discloses attachment member 406 can be stretched or expanded to a sufficiently-large circumference that it can be slipped over a person's hand onto the person's wrist and/or arm (¶[0197]). Connor does not explicitly teach that in annular configuration and under elastic deformation, the inner diameter of the loop is extendible by at least 8 cm.
The specification discloses the appropriate ranges that apply to the claimed invention on page(s) 10 as should be extendible by at least 4 cm, in particular by at least 8 cm.
However, the specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed range(s) of at least 8 is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from the other ranges disclosed. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability to the claimed range(s).
In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05.
Since Conor teach that the attachment member 406 can be stretched or expanded to a sufficiently-large circumference that it can be slipped over a person's hand onto the person's wrist and/or arm, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the inner diameter being extendible is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization.
Since Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range(s) of more than 8 cm provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and the prior art discloses that the tube can extend to fit over a patient’s extremity in order to fit on a different body part absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable range(s) of more than 8 cm by normal optimization procedures known in the wearable arts.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid, as applied to claim 1 and 17 above, in view of Merkel et al. (US 20090197749 A1, published Aug. 6, 2009, hereinafter referred to as “Merkel”).
Regarding claim 4, Reid teaches the wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus of claim 1. Reid teaches elastic materials for the knit tube, however, Reid does not teach wherein said attachment tube comprises an elastic net having elastic material sections surrounding openings forming said loop.
Merkel’s invention relates to wearable fitness devices and fitness devices interchangeable with plural wearable articles (¶[0003]). Anklet 14 is configured, e.g., as a slide-on type anklet. Preferably, the anklet is formed of a suitable shape and material for a core that maintains its position upon one's body. A suitable holding structure is included for holding the fitness device 12. In certain embodiments, an anklet 14 is formed of links, beads, or rope chain, In other embodiment, an anklet 14 or a core thereof is formed of a suitable elastic material such as spandex fiber, knitted elastics, net elastics, rubber-based articles or stretchable cloth. Further, the anklet 14 may be formed of a suitable elastic configuration, such as a loose cloth encompassing an elastic strap as the core. Alternatively, the anklet 14 may include a suitable spring as the core. Such material desirably provides a suitably snug fit to prevent the anklet from sliding out of position and maintain suitable orientation, while not being excessively tight to harm the wearer. Harm to the wearer to be avoided includes irritation to the limb, and/or reduced blood circulation to the limb (¶[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the attachment tube out of a netting as taught by Merkel in the wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus of Reid in order to provides a suitably snug fit to prevent the anklet from sliding out of position and maintain suitable orientation, while not being excessively tight to harm the wearer.
Regarding claim 19, Reid teaches the vital-signs-monitoring device of claim 17. Reid does not teach wherein the housing comprises a top surface section, a bottom surface section and a rim surface section joining the top and bottom surface sections, wherein the top and bottom surface sections are parallel to each other with an accuracy of 15˚.
In Fig. 6, Merkel teaches another feature of the present invention is provided to enhance comfort. A fitness device 70 is provided having suitable curvature, e.g., of molded plastic, to fit comfortably against one's body. The curvature can be any suitable shape of curvature and degree of curvature, depending upon the device and the location at which it will be attached to the body, e.g, leg, arm, neck, torso (¶[0066]). As shown in all of the figures, the electronics enclosure is a rectangular box. When the rim is substantially a rectangular shape all around, the top and bottom sections would be inherently parallel to each other.
Further, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) states In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In this case, constructing the bottom and top surface sections to be parallel with each other is an obvious design choice.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid and Merkel, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Rees et al. (US 5701729 A, published Dec. 30, 1997, hereinafter referred to as “Rees”).
Regarding claim 5, Reid and Merkel teach the wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus of claim 4. Reid and Merkel do not disclose wherein said elastic net comprises elastic strings having a polymeric core and a textile coating.
Rees’s invention relates to a system for forming elastomeric core/staple fiber wrap yarn using a spinning machine (Col 1, ln. 7-9). It has been known in the textile industry to form core/wrap yarns, consisting of a single elastomeric core having a multiple staple fiber wrap wound therearound, e.g., Lycra® spandex core/cotton wrap yarn, encapsulating the core with an external sheath of fiber. Such core/wrap yarns are suitable for use in stretch apparel such as bathing suits, undergarments, hosiery, or other snugly fitting clothing items or comfortable regular fitting clothing (Col. 1, ln. 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used elastic strings with a polymeric core and a textile coating as taught by Rees in the apparatus of Reid and Merkel as this is a well-known material used for stretchable and snugly fitting clothing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid and Merkel, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of McNeill (UPI archives, published Mar. 5, 1998, hereinafter referred to as “McNeill”).
Regarding claim 6, Reid and Merkel teach the wearable vital-signs-monitoring apparatus of claim 4. Reid and Merkel do not disclose wherein the mesh has, when elastically linearly extended by 20%, a surface ratio between the openings and the material sections, of at least 1:1.
McNeill teaches that fishnet long johns were invented by the commercial fishermen of Scandinavia. Not only does it keep you warm in winter, it keeps you cool in summer. A material that is 90 percent 'holes' can function as an insulator. The generous open space in the net permits passage of body moisture that almost entirely prevents accumulated dampness that causes chilling when an active person slows down.
Reid, Merkel, and McNeill do not explicitly teach the claimed ratio, however, it is well-known that fishnet tights have a smaller ratio when not in use and then when pulled on the ratio of holes to fabric increases. Larger knit tights are available on the market which would produce much larger openings than 1:1 ratio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary still in the art at the time of filing to have the netting have a ratio between the openings and the material at least 1:1 when expanded by 20% as taught by McNeill and common fishnet apparel products on the market in the device of Reid and Merkel in order to prevent accumulation of moisture and keep body temperature cool.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid and Merkel, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Garai et al. (US 20220133183 A1, published May 5, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Garai”).
Regarding claim 20, Reid and Merkel teach the vital-signs-monitoring device of claim 19. Reid and Merkel do not explicitly teach wherein an area of each of the top and bottom surface section is at least as large as an area the rim surface section.
Garai’s invention is related to wearable medical devices, and more particularly to low-profile wearable medical devices having reduced housing components (¶[0001]). Wearable medical devices allow for continuous monitoring of a user's health. However, due to the continuous nature of the monitoring, users are particularly concerned about comfort and the possible obtrusiveness of these devices in certain situations (¶[0003]). It is desirable to provide a low-profile wearable medical device with a reduced height. Also, it may be desirable to provide a wearable medical device with a smaller footprint (¶[0004]).
Further, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) states In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In this case, constructing the bottom and top surface sections to have a larger area than the rim sections is a design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the area of the top and bottom sections at least as large as the area in the rim surface sections in order to reduce the profile size of the electronic device and make the device more comfortable as taught by Garai in the device of Reid and Merkel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid, as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Kho et al. (US 20220291053 A1, published Sept. 15, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Kho”).
Regarding claim 21, Reid teaches the vital-signs-monitoring device of claim 17. Reid also teaches wherein said device comprises a temperature sensor (“body monitoring system 10 and/or method can be adapted to monitor variables in animate and/or inanimate bodies. Such variables include, for example, heartbeat, blood flow, pulse rate and quality, oxygenation, temperature, edema, body movements, and other physiological variables.” ¶[0151]).
Reid does not teach wherein, in the bottom surface section, said housing has a first wall section and a second wall section, with the first wall section surrounding the second wall section, wherein the second wall section is thinner than the first wall section, and wherein the temperature sensor is adjacent to the second wall section.
Kho’s invention relates to an arrangement employing the sensor and a method for assembling the sensor (¶[0002]). In FIG. 2 a cross section of the housing 4 for a sensor 1 is shown. The housing 4 has two portions, a first portion 6 which comprises the opening, on the upper side, and a second portion 7 opposing the side of the opening and connected to it, whereby the second portion 7 has a smaller diameter than the first portion 6. The grooves 9 extend from the opening all the way down to the bottom at an inner surface of the housing 4. The sensor element 2 is arranged in the second portion 7 of the housing 4 which has a smaller diameter. As the sensor element 2 has less material surrounding it, compared to the second portion 7, a higher measurement accuracy and faster response time for the sensor 1 are provided. The first portion 6 of the housing 4, which has a larger diameter, stabilizes the electrical leads 3 connected to the sensor element 2 (¶[0052]).
MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) states “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a portion of the enclosure with a smaller thickness where the temperature sensor will be located as taught by Kho in the device of Reid in order to achieve higher accuracy and faster response times.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
