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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gandhi et al(USPGPUB 2018/0103901).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Gandhi et al(Gandhi) includes:
1) a wearable device to monitor health data of a user is met by the wearable device including modular strap(100), which monitors health data of a user(see: Gandhi, sec[0021]);
2) an outer layer, an inner layer, and a middle layer positioned between the outer layer and the inner layer, wherein the middle layer is a PCB housing is met by the strap(100) which has outer and inner layers(not shown), as seen in figure 2, as well as the flexible Printed circuit Board Assembly(PCBA);
3) a plurality of sensors configured to measure health data of the user is met by the health sensing module(204), which is included in the multifunction modular strap(100), wherein the health sensing module(204) includes a plurality of health sensors(see: Gandhi, sec[0024]);
4) a microcontroller for processing the health data measured by the plurality of sensors is met by the processing unit(216), which co-operates with various units in the strap(100) to process received data from the units, including the health sensing module(see: Gandhi, sec[0031]);
5) wherein the outer layer includes a housing configured to accommodate a color changing hardware, and the microcontroller controls illumination of the color changing hardware when the health data satisfies a predefined condition is met by the exterior cover of the strap, enclosing a cavity that is between the exterior and interior portion of the band, and wherein the band encapsulates a notification module(224) including at least one multi-color light emitting diode for providing visual notifications, and wherein the notification module(224) co-operates with the processing unit(216) to provide notifications to a user based on at least one information signal by providing color based notifications pertaining to the health condition of the user(see: Gandhi, sec[0037]). The outer layer of the band would have constituted a housing, since it encapsulates the notification module.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the color-changing hardware includes at least one of light-emitting diodes(LEDs) and light-emitting polymers(LEPs) is met by the notification module(224) including at least one multi-color light emitting diode(see: Gandhi, sec[0037]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) a memory coupled to the microcontroller to store the health data is met by the memory(220), which is included in the processing unit(216), and stores conditioned health data(see: Gandhi, sec[0031]).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) a wireless module housed in the PCB, wherein the wireless module is configured to transmit the health data to a user device is met by the communication module(226) which is fabricated as a flexible Printed Circuit Board Assembly(PCBA)(see: Gandhi, sec[0042]).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the health data includes biomarker data and user fitness data is met by the memory(220) storing a pre-determined set of threshold ranges of conditioned health and activity data(see: Gandhi, sec[0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al(Gandhi) in view of Connor(USPGPUB 2018/0307314).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the plurality of sensors includes SpO2 sensor, heartbeat sensor, photoplethysmogram(PPG) sensor, temperature sensor, motion sensor, electrocardiogram(ECG) sensor, barometer, accelerometer, and gyroscope is met by the plurality of health sensors(202) including blood oxygen sensors including SpO2 sensors, heart rate sensors(302), electrocardiogram(ECG/EKG) and/or phtoplethysmogram(PPG) sensors(322), and temperature sensors(310).
- Gandhi does not teach:
1) the sensors including motion sensor, barometer, accelerometer, and gyroscope.
Although not specifically taught by Gandhi, use of these sensors included in a body worn monitoring unit is well known. In related art, Connor teaches a circumferential array of sensors, wherein sensors incorporated into a bracelet, watch or finger ring, include various sensors that monitor user parameters. The sensors include an accelerometer, barometer, gyroscope, and motion sensor(see: Connor, sec[0120]).
Since the use of body worn sensors arrays, which monitor various parameters pertaining to the wearer, including motion, barometer, accelerometer, and gyroscopic data is well known, as taught by Connor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the barometer, accelerometer, gyroscope, and motion sensor of Connor, into the sensors of Gandhi, since this would have added a more comprehensive collection of data for monitoring the wearer of the wearable device Gandhi.
-- With regards to claim 10, Gandhi does not teach:
1) the wearable device is a smart ring.
However, Connor teaches that the wearable device with sensors would be readily incorporated into a finger ring(see: Connor, sec[0028]). Since the use of wearable devices with sensors incorporated into a finger ring is well known, as taught by Connor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the ring of Connor, as the wearable device of Gandhi, since this would have provided a non-obtrusive means of providing sensors for monitoring user activity, in a compact device that is readily wearable by the user.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al(Gandhi) in view of Bey(USPGPUB 2021/0307664 A1).
-- With regards to claim 5, Gandhi does not teach:
1) the outer layer is made from a rigid, scratch-proof material including titanium, sapphire glass, hardened glass, fiber, and translucent material.
Although use of rigid, scratch proof material is not specifically disclosed by Gandhi, use of this type of material for user wearable devices is well known. In related art, Bey teaches the use of a biometric mood sensing apparatus, including a bracelet body(12), that includes an outer face(14) that is translucent, and made from a scratch-resistant, glare resistant material(see: Bey, sec[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the translucent scratch resistant material of the bracelet of Bey, into the wearable device of Gandhi, since this would have helped unsure the most durable device possible to be worn by a user.
-- With regards to claim 7, Gandhi does not teach:
1) the color-changing hardware is capable of illuminating in multiple colors and displaying various illumination patterns including blinking, revolving lights, dimming, and brightening at defined intervals.
Although not specifically taught by Gandhi, use of color changing hardware on a wearable biometrics device is well known. In related art, Bey teaches a biometric mood sensing apparatus, wherein LED’s illuminate multiple different colors and displaying various illumination patterns, including blinking, for showing mood of the wearer, based on biometric data determined(see: sec[0045]).
Since the use of changing colors for a wearable biometrics device is well known, as taught by Bey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the color changing LED’s of Bey, into the wearable device of Gandhi, since this would have provided a more comprehensive means of communicating biometrics data to a user of the system, since the changing color display would have3 provided a more perceptible means of receiving data.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al(Gandhi) in view of Martin et al(USPGPUB 2017/0102672).
-- With regards to claim 6, Gandhi does not teach:
1) the inner layer is composed of a semi-transparent, translucent, or transparent material to allow an optical sensor to collect the user data when the wearable device is worn by the user.
Although not specifically taught by Gandhi, use of semi-transparent, translucent, or transparent material to allow an optical sensor to collect user data is well known. In related art, Martin et al(martin) teaches a bracelet with transparent case back(6) made of sapphire, glass and other materials, which allows sensors including light source and LED(66) and image sensor(58) to function through the transparent back(see: Martin, sec[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the transparent case back(6) of Martin, into the wearable device of Gandhi, since this would have facilitated signals on the inner portion of the band to function, since Gandhi does teach use of optical sensors that would have required some form of translucent opening in order for the sensor to function properly in order to send and receive the optical signals.
REMARKS:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
1) “Independent claim 1 has been amended to specify that……….Accordingly, the rejections of the various dependent claims as being unpatentable over Gandhi and one or more of the other applied references should be withdrawn as well.”
Applicant goes in to great detail, as to describe the subject matter of the amended claim, and makes reference to the fact that the prior art to Gandhi discloses a strap(100) that appears to be described as a singular monolithic material in which the various components are dispersed throughout. The applicant goes on to state that Gandi does not specify any housing comparable to the claimed outer layer. However, a review of the specification does not teach ANY specifics about the claimed housing of the present invention. The specification merely states that the “housing accommodates a color changing hardware………..and is made by creating cavities in the outer layer so that the color changing hardware can be disposed.”
How is that any different than what the band(100) of Gandhi does? The definition of a housing for a device is:
“an external protective case, shell, or enclosure, commonly made of metal, plastic or composite materials, that encloses, supports, and secures internal components from environmental damage, contamination, and physical impact”
Again, the examiner asks, how does the band of Gandhi not read on this claimed subject matter. The applicant provides no detail of what the housing would entail, in a manner that would overcome the prior art of record. The outside band, and inside band of the strap, create a cavity that allows placement of the inner components to be shielded from environmental elements. Absent a detailed description of what the claimed housing entails, and as well, a showing of a benefit that the claimed housing provides over the prior art of record, the examiner deems that the prior art still reads on the claimed subject matter, for the reasons as recited in the art rejection above. In view of this, applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
2) “Depended claim 3 recites, in pertinent part,……….Accordingly, the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 10 should be withdrawn for at least this additional reason.”
Applicant is arguing that Gandhi teaches away from incorporating the devices of Connor into Gandhi, because Gandhi desires to keep power consumption low, and therefore, incorporation of the devices of Conner would thereby cause an increase in power consumption in a manner that teaches away from Gandhi. Applicant cites paragraphs[0010; 0063]) to support his argument of teaching away from adding the components of Conner into Gandhi. The applicant misrepresents the snippet of paragraph 10, as a means to justify his argument that Gandhi teaches away from adding the devices of Conner. In actuality, if applicant expanded his interpretation of Gandhi, to include the subject matter of paragraphs [0003-0006], the applicant would realize that paragraph 10 actually adds motivation to add the devices of Conner, instead of teaching away.
The main purpose of Gandhi, as recited in paragraphs[0003-0006] is to combine the functions of the various health monitoring devices into one device, so as to alleviate or reduce the different power requirements that each separate device requires. So, actually, it is Gandhi’s desire to combine various different health monitoring capabilities, into the strap of Gandhi, and this is the power saving aspect of the invention, that paragraph[0010] was referring to. Not applicant’s asserted, addition of devices of Conner causing more power consumption in Gandhi. In actuality, Gandhi welcoms the combining of the various health monitoring devices into one multi-function modular strap.
Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion presupposes that the devices of Conner would raise the power consumption of Gandhi above what is desired in the system. And that the devices of Conner could not be of the type that would keep power consumption at a minimum. The examiner deems that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily take into consideration the desires as stated by Gandhi, and utilize components that would keep power consumption at a minimum. Gandhi stated that lower power consumption is desired, but did not preclude adding extra health monitoring functions to the system. Gandhi merely stated that low power consumption is an objective. If Gandhi stated that the system could not accommodate any devices that add to power consumption, then it would have been explicitly stated. The examiner deems that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, would have been capable of incorporating components, such as that of Conner, that would have maintained low power consumption, while at the same time adding functionality. In view of this, applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive.
3) “Dependent claim 5 recites in pertinent part,……….The rejection of dependent claims 5 and 7 should be withdrawn………..Dependent claim 6 recites, in pertinent part,………..Thus, the rejection of dependent claim 6 should be withdrawn.”
Applicant is arguing that Bey does not overcome the deficiencies of Gandhi, with regards to the claimed housing features. On the contrary, the examiner deems that Bey teaches a housing that would also read on the claimed subject matter. As well, Martin is not required to overcome the deficiencies of Gandhi, because, as discussed above, Gandhi does not have deficiencies in relation to the claimed subject matter of claim 1. In view of this, applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive, for the reasons as recited in the rebuttal to arguments of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686