Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-7 are pending in the present application. Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are
`
`presently under consideration as a result of a previous restriction requirement. Claims
`
`1-7 have been amended. Favorable reconsideration of the application, as amended, is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM IN TERPRETA TION
`
`The Examiner indicates features in claims 1, 2 and 5-7 are interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. §112(f). Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the claim feature use 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. The Examiner specifically refers to “a biological signal measurer”, “a
`H
`II
`
`biological noise measurer”, “a biological noise estimator , an environmental noise
`”
`ll
`
`measurer , an environmental noise estimator”, and “a calculator”.
`
`Applicant has amended to claim 1 to avoid invoking means-plus-function under
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(f) by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
`
`Specifically, claim 1, as amended, recites “a processor”, “a biological sensor”, “a
`
`biological noise sensor”, and “an environmental noise sensor”, instead of above
`
`language referred to by the Examiner.
`
`Support for “a processor” may be found, for example, in page 24, line 26 — page
`
`25, line 12 of the Specification. Support for “a biological sensor”, “a biological noise
`
`sensor” and “an environmental noise sensor” may be found, for example, in page 6,
`
`lines 14-22, page 7, lines 12-22, and page 8, lines 11-24, respectively.
`
`Applicant notes that “processor” can includes one or more processors including
`
`central processing units (CPUs), digital signal processors (DSPs), field programable
`
`gate arrays (FPGAs), co-processors, multiple-core processors, discrete control circuits
`
`and other types of structural processors as are very well-known structural elements.
`
`Applicant also notes that “sensors” including electroencephalography (EEG)
`
`sensors, electrocardiography (ECG) sensors, body temperature sensors, sweat
`
`sensors, myoelectric sensors, radio wave sensors, magnetic sensors, accelerometer
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`sensors, gyroscope sensors, humidity sensors, air flow sensors, and other sensors are
`
`very well-known structural elements.
`
`Accordingly, applicant respectfully submits that claim 1, together with claims 2
`
`and 5-7 depend therefrom, does not invoke means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112(f).
`
`II.
`
`REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4, 6 AND 7 UNDER 35 us. C. §112(b)
`
`Claim 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite.
`
`The Examiner points out that claim 4 twice recites “an electrode”, and asserts
`
`that it is not clear whether these two recitations are intended to refer to the same one
`
`electrode or two distinct electrodes.
`
`The Examiner also points out that claim 6 twice recites “an absorbance”, and
`
`asserts that it is unclear whether the claim intends to recite two distinct absorbance
`
`measurements or a single absorbance measurement at two distinct points.
`
`The Examiner further points out that claim 7 twice recites “an amount of sweat”,
`
`and asserts that claim 7 encounters the same issue.
`
`Applicant has amended claim 4 to recite “a first electrode” and “a second
`
`electrode”. Applicant has amended claim 6 to recite “a first absorbance” and “a second
`
`absorbance”. Applicant has amended claim 7 to recite “a first amount of sweat” and “a
`
`second amount of sweat’.
`
`Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`III.
`
`REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5 AND 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Shin (US 2015/0080675) in view of Nakamura (US 4,716,907).
`
`Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection for at least following reasons.
`
`Claim 1, as amended, recites:
`
`A biological signal measurement system comprising:
`a processor;
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`a biological sensor, which is combined with the processor, is configured to
`measure a biological signal including external noise of biological noise and of
`environmental noise;
`a biological noise sensor, which is combined with the processor, is
`configured to measure a signal including predominant/y the biological noise; and
`an environmental noise sensor, which is combined with the
`processor, is configured to measure a signal including predominantly the
`environmental noise;
`wherein the processor performs to:
`estimate the biological noise from the signal measured by the biological
`noise sensor;
`estimate the environmental noise from the signal measured by the
`environmental noise sensor; and
`calculate a biological signal in consideration of an effect of the external
`noise, using the biological signal measured by the biological sensor, the
`estimated biological noise and the estimated environmental noise.
`(Emphasis
`Added)
`
`i. Shin Fails to Teach an Environmental Noise Sensor
`
`Claim 1 recites “an environmental noise sensor, which is combined with the
`
`processor, is configured to measure a signal including predominantly the environmental
`
`noise”.
`
`In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Shin as teaching an environmental
`
`noise sensor as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner refers to a bio sensor 200
`
`including a galvanic skin response (GSR) sensor, a heat rate (HR) sensor, a body
`
`temperature sensor, respiration sensor, and facial electromyogram sensor. The
`
`Examiner asserts that body signals including GSR, temp, facial muscles, HR, and
`
`respiration can be influenced by environment, and thereby constitute environmental
`
`noise.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagree with the Examiner’s position.
`
`Shin teaches a controller 400 connected to a brainwave measurement unit 100
`
`and a bio signal measurement unit 200. The brainwave measurement unit 100
`
`measures the brainwave of a human, and outputs a measured result associated with
`
`the brainwave measurement to the controller 400. The bio signal measurement unit
`
`200 measures bio signals of the human, and outputs a measured result associated with
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`the measured bio signal to the controller 400. The bio signals include galvanic skin
`
`response, heat rate, body temperature, respiration, and facial electromyogram. The
`
`controller 400 evaluates a degree of engagement or emotional reaction of the human
`
`based on the brainwave and bio signals.
`
`It would be clear that the bio signal measurement unit 200 of Shin is intended to
`
`measure “bio signals”, not “environmental noise”, in order to allow the controller 400 to
`
`evaluate the degree of engagement or emotional reaction using the brainwave and the
`
`bio signals.
`
`Applicant notes that Shin does not teach or suggest an environmental noise
`
`sensor configured to predominantly measure a signal including the environmental noise,
`
`as recited in claim 1. Rather, Shin teaches the bio signal measurement unit 200 that
`
`measures the bio signals such as galvanic skin response, heat rate, body temperature,
`
`respiration, and facial electromyogram.
`
`Moreover, Shin does not teach or suggest that the bio signals are influenced by
`
`the environment. The Examiner interprets that the bio signals of Shin include
`
`environmental noise because the bio signals are influenced by the environment.
`
`However, applicant respectfully submits that such interpretation is unsupported in Shin.
`
`Furthermore, even if the bio signals include the environmental noise as asserted
`
`by the Examiner, the environmental noise would be incidental and unintentional so that
`
`the controller 400 can provide “an improvement of reliability of the evaluation”.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the incidental noise in the bio signals does not
`
`anticipate the claimed features. See, “incidental effect in prior patent containing no
`
`suggestion of function of patent in suit and not suggestive to man skilled in art does not
`
`anticipate; accidental or incidental occurrence do not anticipate”— O/sson v. United
`
`states (Ct. C/s. U. S.) 9 USPQ 111 .
`
`In order to make even more clear that the signals measured by the
`
`environmental noise sensor (and biological noise sensor) do not represent simply
`
`incidental noise as suggested by the Examiner with respect to Shin, applicant has
`
`amended claim 1 to note that the measured signals represent predominantly noise and
`
`not simply incidental noise.
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`Accordingly, Shin fails to teach “an environmental noise sensor, which is
`
`combined with the processor, is configured to measure a signal including predominantly
`
`the environmental noise” as recited in claim 1. Nakamura is cited for merely showing
`
`the estimation of the bio signals, and does not make up for the above deficiencies.
`
`For at least above reasons, applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the
`
`rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7 depend from claim 1, and may be patentably
`
`distinguished for the same reasons as claim 1, as well as based on particular features
`
`recited therein.
`
`IV.
`
`REJECTION OF CLAIM 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shin
`
`in view of Nakamura, Kato (US 2014/0107494) and Sutin (US 2018/0070831). Claim 6
`
`depend from claim 1, and may be patentably distinguished for the same reasons as
`
`claim 1, as well as based on particular features recited therein.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, all claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are believed to be allowable and the
`
`application is believed to be in condition for allowance. A prompt action to such end is
`
`earnestly solicited.
`
`Applicant notes the absence in this reply of any comments on the other
`
`contentions set forth in the Office Action should not be construed to be an acquiescence
`
`therein. Rather, no comment is needed since the rejections should be withdrawn for at
`
`least the foregoing reasons.
`
`Should the Examiner feel that a telephone interview would be helpful to facilitate
`
`favorable prosecution of the above-identified application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`contact the undersigned at the telephone number provided below.
`
`Should a petition for an extension of time be necessary for the timely reply to the
`
`outstanding Office Action (or if such a petition has been made and an additional
`
`extension is necessary), petition is hereby made and the Commissioner is authorized to
`
`charge any fees (including additional claim fees) to Deposit Account No. 18-0988.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`
`/Mark D. Saralino/
`
`Mark D. Saralino
`
`Reg. No. 34,243
`
`DATE:
`
`July 25, 2019
`
`Application No.: 15/437,666
`
`The Keith Building
`1621 Euclid Avenue
`
`Nineteenth Floor
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44115
`(216) 621-1113
`
`2019-07-18 Draft niipp189nonfinalOA042619
`
`Page 10of1O
`
`