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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 11/12/2025.
The amendments filed on 11/12/2025 have been entered. Applicant has presently canceled claims 4, 6, 15-17, and 19. Accordingly claims 1-3, 7-14, 18, and 20 remain pending. Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 18, and 20 are presently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection of amended claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rubin et al. and Shai.
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:
finger-retention element in claim 7 and 11;
gripping element in claims 8, 9, 12, and 13.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the “finger-retention element” the specification discloses “In some embodiments, the finger-retention element 320 a, 320 b may be formed from an elastomeric and/or deformable material, such that insertion of the user's finger may cause at least a portion of the finger-retention element 320 a, 320 b to expand or deform, thereby applying a gripping force to the finger.” ([0061] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “finger-retention element” has been interpreted as an elastomeric or deformable material or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
Regarding the “gripping element” the specification discloses “These gripping elements may be a softer polymer surface, or they may be an array of discrete elements formed from a softer polymer as dots or ridges, or they may be textured areas.” ([0060] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “gripping element” has been interpreted as a softer polymer surface, or an array of discrete elements formed from a softer polymer as dots or ridges, or textured areas or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the distal” in line 14 should be changed to –the distal end—in order to have proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “The ultrasound probe of claim 19” renders the claim indefinite because claim 19 has been presently canceled. For the present purposes of examination, the claim has been treated as depending on independent claim 10. Further clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C0. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett, III et al. (US 2015/0257733, September 17, 2015, hereinafter “Corbett”) in view of Rubin et al. (US 2018/0335841, November 22, 2018), Shai (US 2011/0210931, September 1, 2011), and Koblish et al. (US 2014/0081262, March 20, 2014, hereinafter “Koblish”).
Regarding claim 1, Corbett discloses an ultrasound probe (“The probe 12 includes a transducer consisting of an array of ultrasound elements, such as piezoelectric elements or a CMUT sensor, which convert electrical impulses into ultrasonic or acoustic energy and returning ultrasonic energy into electrical impulses which can be processed into images.” [0018]), comprising:
a housing (see housing in Figs. 6-7 and corresponding descriptions, specifically “A structure (not shown) which can be made of flex circuit or any other electrically conductive or connective material may be employed to electrically interconnect the array and the cable in a way that permits the cable to exit or extend from the probe at an opposing aspect of the housing from the elements. Such a structure may encircle a receptacle 28 for a user's finger which is defined by the housing so that the sensor may be placed beneath the pulp of the user's finger.” [0023]) having a top side and a bottom side, a proximal end and a distal end, and a longitudinal axis extending between the distal end and the proximal end (see annotated Figs. 6-7 reproduced below and corresponding descriptions) wherein the proximal end comprises a single finger-receiving aperture that is configured to form a sleeve including a tubular wall member defining an inner lumen (receptacle 28 in e.g., Fig. 6 and corresponding description);
PNG
media_image1.png
543
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an ultrasound array disposed adjacent to the distal end (array 22, 24 in Fig. 7 and corresponding description); and
wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array (“Probes of various shapes and architectures permit varying field of views, and would be appropriate for use with this system. For example a curved linear array with relatively small radius of curvature permits imaging in the near field of the probe over a wide field of view. A phased array transducer permits imaging over a wide field of view at some distance from the array, while allowing imaging through a narrow access. A linear array permits imaging over a narrower field of view but provides good imaging of structures near the surface of the array. This is frequently the type of imagery that is highly desirable in surgical situations.” [0019]).
Corbett fails to disclose the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material.
However, Rubin teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. finger wearable sensor, e.g., see Abstract), the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material (“Tensile member 258 preferably comprises an elastic textile, such as Lycra, an elastomer, such as latex, or another suitable high strain material.” [0040]; also see [0039]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material as taught by Rubin in order to stretch to accommodate various finger sizes ([0040] of Rubin).
Zhu also fails to disclose a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers.
However, Shai teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers (“sections 804a,b may be dynamic (also "changeable", or specifically "moveable") to generally influence or control the size of cavity 803 (or otherwise "to generally change the size of the cavity"). In other words, sections 804a,b may be dynamic (i.e. may be changed or moved) to facilitate cavity 803 accommodating different sizes of a human finger (so that fingers of different sizes may be inserted into the cavity). Specifically, sections 804a,b may be moved (also "relocated", or "repositioned") or changed, for increasing and decreasing the size of cavity 803, such that larger sized fingers and smaller sized fingers, respectively, may fit into the cavity and be properly gripped in the cavity (to prevent device 800 from slipping off). More specifically, in some embodiments, sections 804a,b may be generally extended from section 802 towards cavity 803, or retracted into section 802. In other words, 804a,b may generally protrude into cavity 803 or recede from cavity 803, such as suggested by directions illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B.” [0267]; also see Figs. 8A-D and corresponding descriptions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers as taught by Shai in order to accommodate different sizes of a human finger ([0267] of Shai).
Although Corbett discloses the imaging planes of the ultrasound arrays can be rotated by a user twisting their wrist ([0020]), Corbett fails to disclose wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis.
However, Koblish teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a catheter 110 in Fig. 1, reproduced in part below, with three ultrasound arrays disposed adjacent to the distal end of the catheter (see ultrasound transducers 117-119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description). Koblish further teaches wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Regarding claim 2, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically Koblish was relied on to teach the angling of the ultrasound array. Koblish further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-40 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-40 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Regarding claim 3, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically Koblish was relied on to teach the angling of the ultrasound array. Koblish further teaches, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-30 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-30 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Regarding claim 10, Corbett discloses an ultrasound probe (“The probe 12 includes a transducer consisting of an array of ultrasound elements, such as piezoelectric elements or a CMUT sensor, which convert electrical impulses into ultrasonic or acoustic energy and returning ultrasonic energy into electrical impulses which can be processed into images.” [0018]), comprising:
a housing (see housing in Figs. 6-7 and corresponding descriptions, specifically “A structure (not shown) which can be made of flex circuit or any other electrically conductive or connective material may be employed to electrically interconnect the array and the cable in a way that permits the cable to exit or extend from the probe at an opposing aspect of the housing from the elements. Such a structure may encircle a receptacle 28 for a user's finger which is defined by the housing so that the sensor may be placed beneath the pulp of the user's finger.” [0023]) having a top side, a bottom side, a proximal end, and a distal end (see annotated Figs. 6-7 reproduced below and corresponding descriptions), wherein the proximal end comprises a finger-receiving aperture that is configured to form a sleeve including a tubular wall member defining an inner lumen (receptacle 28 in e.g., Fig. 6 and corresponding description);
PNG
media_image3.png
442
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an ultrasound array disposed adjacent to the distal end of the housing (array 22, 24 in Fig. 7 and corresponding description); and
wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array (“Probes of various shapes and architectures permit varying field of views, and would be appropriate for use with this system. For example a curved linear array with relatively small radius of curvature permits imaging in the near field of the probe over a wide field of view. A phased array transducer permits imaging over a wide field of view at some distance from the array, while allowing imaging through a narrow access. A linear array permits imaging over a narrower field of view but provides good imaging of structures near the surface of the array. This is frequently the type of imagery that is highly desirable in surgical situations.” [0019]).
Corbett fails to disclose the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material.
However, Rubin teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. finger wearable sensor, e.g., see Abstract), the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material (“Tensile member 258 preferably comprises an elastic textile, such as Lycra, an elastomer, such as latex, or another suitable high strain material.” [0040]; also see [0039]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material as taught by Rubin in order to stretch to accommodate various finger sizes ([0040] of Rubin).
Zhu also fails to disclose a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers.
However, Shai teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers (“sections 804a,b may be dynamic (also "changeable", or specifically "moveable") to generally influence or control the size of cavity 803 (or otherwise "to generally change the size of the cavity"). In other words, sections 804a,b may be dynamic (i.e. may be changed or moved) to facilitate cavity 803 accommodating different sizes of a human finger (so that fingers of different sizes may be inserted into the cavity). Specifically, sections 804a,b may be moved (also "relocated", or "repositioned") or changed, for increasing and decreasing the size of cavity 803, such that larger sized fingers and smaller sized fingers, respectively, may fit into the cavity and be properly gripped in the cavity (to prevent device 800 from slipping off). More specifically, in some embodiments, sections 804a,b may be generally extended from section 802 towards cavity 803, or retracted into section 802. In other words, 804a,b may generally protrude into cavity 803 or recede from cavity 803, such as suggested by directions illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B.” [0267]; also see Figs. 8A-D and corresponding descriptions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers as taught by Shai in order to accommodate different sizes of a human finger ([0267] of Shai).
Although Corbett discloses the imaging planes of the ultrasound arrays can be rotated by a user twisting their wrist ([0020]), Corbett fails to disclose wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis.
However, Koblish teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a catheter 110 in Fig. 1, reproduced in part below, with three ultrasound arrays disposed adjacent to the distal end of the catheter (see ultrasound transducers 117-119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description). Koblish further teaches wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image2.png
234
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled toward the bottom side between 10-50 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Regarding claim 14, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Corbett further discloses wherein the longitudinal axis extends between the distal end and the proximal end (see annotated Figs. 6-7 reproduced above with respect to the rejection of claim 10 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 18, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Koblish was relied on to teach the angling of the ultrasound array. Koblish further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-40 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-40 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Regarding claim 20, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Koblish was relied on to teach the angling of the ultrasound array. Koblish further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-30 degrees from the longitudinal axis (ultrasound transducer 119 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 20-30 degrees from the longitudinal axis as taught by Koblish in order to provide the ultrasound transducers facing in a direction according to the area required to be scanned ([0041] of Koblish).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett in view of Rubin, Shai, and Koblish as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Sliwa (US 2009/0163807, June 25, 2009).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Corbett modified by Rubin, Shai, and Koblish discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 10 as stated above. Corbett fails to disclose wherein the finger-receiving aperture includes a finger-retention element.
However, Sliwa teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the finger-receiving aperture (mounting body 12 in Fig. 3, re-produced below, and corresponding description) includes a finger-retention element (band 17 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description, e.g. “a band 17 that may bridge the partial cylinder and be configured to retain mounting body 12 on a finger.” [0018]).
PNG
media_image4.png
232
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the finger-receiving aperture includes a finger-retention element as taught by Sliwa in order to secure the device to the finger ([0018] of Sliwa).
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbett in view of Rubin, Shai, and Koblish as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Takano et al. (US 4,898,177, February 6, 1990, hereinafter “Takano”).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 12-13, Corbett modified by Koblish and Woltjer discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as stated above and Corbett further discloses wherein the housing further comprises a left side and a right side (see housing in Figs. 6-7 and corresponding descriptions).
Corbett fails to disclose wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element, wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end.
However, Takano teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the housing (adapter 50 in Fig. 3, re-produced below with annotations, and corresponding description) further comprises a left side and a right side (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element (grip portions 52 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description), wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end (e.g. see Figs. 3 and 8 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image5.png
322
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Corbett with wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element, wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end as taught by Takano in order to allow a user to hold the device with a relatively large number of support points (col. 8, ll. 47-62 of Takano).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892, Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
