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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 05/28/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oyama (US 2019/0286207).
Regarding claim 1: Oyama disclose a biological information output device comprising:
a controller that controls running and stopping of the biological information output device which runs on power supply from a battery and which outputs biological information (¶0035-0036 & ¶0042), wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire an initial battery level which is a level of the battery at a start of the running of the biological information output device (¶0071: an initial battery level must be determined in order to calculate remaining power ),
determine whether the initial battery level is less than or equal to a first level, the first level being a level required for the biological information output device to run for a preset time (¶0075-0076: “NO” answer to question in S1113), and
when it is determined that the initial battery level is less than or equal to the first level, output a notification signal that notifies a user that the running will not continue for the preset time (Fig. 6-7, ¶0077).
Regarding claim 2: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to:
after outputting the notification signal, end the running of the biological information output device running on the power supply of the battery (Fig. 6-7, ¶0077).
Regarding claim 3: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire a current level of the battery, during running of the biological information output device, determine whether the current level is less than or equal to a second level, the second level being less than the first level, and output a warning signal that notifies the user when it is determined that the current level is less than or equal to the second level.(¶0095)
Regarding claim 5: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 3, wherein, when the current level is less than or equal to the first level and greater than the second level, the controller is configured to continue running the biological information output device.(¶0095)
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(s) 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama (US 2019/0286207) in view of Yamashita (US 2019/0117081).
Regarding claim 4: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
after outputting the warning signal, end the running of the biological information output device running on power supply from the battery.
In analogous art regarding battery management in a biological information output device, Yanmashita disclose a biological information output device that after outputting the warning signal, end the running of the biological information output device running on power supply from the battery.(¶0074)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the features of after outputting the warning signal, end the running of the biological information output device running on power supply from the battery, as disclose by Yamashita, to the system of Oyama. The motivation is to save power.
Regarding claim 6: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire a continuous running time since start of the battery-powered running, and when the continuous running time is longer than or equal to the preset time, output a signal that notifies the user that power required for running for the preset time is consumed.
In analogous art regarding battery management in a biological information output device, Yamashita disclose wherein the controller is further configured to:
acquire a continuous running time since start of the battery-powered running, and when the continuous running time is longer than or equal to the preset time, output a signal that notifies the user that power required for running for the preset time is consumed.(Fig. 3, ¶0044-0052)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the features of wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire a continuous running time since start of the battery-powered running, and when the continuous running time is longer than or equal to the preset time, output a signal that notifies the user that power required for running for the preset time is consumed, as disclose by Yamashita, to the system of Oyama. The motivation is to save power.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Oyama and Yamashita disclose the biological information output device according to claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: after outputting the signal, end the running of the biological information output device running on power supply from the battery. (Yamashita: Fig. 3, ¶0044-0052)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama (US 2019/0286207) in view of Makinouchi et al. (US 2017/0215029)
Regarding claim 8: Oyama disclose the biological information output device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire, through wireless communication, the biological information from a biosensor.
In analogous art regarding biological information output device, Makinouchi disclose a biological information output device configured to: acquire, through wireless communication, the biological information from a biosensor.(¶0037)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire, through wireless communication, the biological information from a biosensor, as disclose by Makinouchi, to the system of Oyama. The motivation is to provide mobility and communication range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
