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 . 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 05/05/2025 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 17. Claims 14 and 15 remain withdrawn.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, the recitation of “interface unit a wrist” should instead read –interface unit is a wrist--.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of “skin skin interface” should instead read –skin interface--.-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “first/second/one/other/at least two (skin interface) unit(s)” in claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 16-18, “body-mountable unit” in claim 3, “wearable unit” in claim 5, and “wrist mountable unit” in claim 16.
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 (e.g. for each of the units, a ring and/or smartwatch as shown in Fig. 2 (or the devices shown in Fig. 6) – also see Fig. 3 and related description).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support for the known initial position of the “other” of the units being the known first location, at least because: (1) the previous claim recited the “one” of the units (notably, this amendment was not reflected using strikethrough and underlining) and (2) the claim already recites one of the units (i.e., the “one”) being for placement at a known first location, and there is no support for the units being interchangeable at the same location, especially when the re-calibration is already based on a known initial position of the two units. I.e., there is no description of the other of the two units being moved to the original location of the one of the two units during re-calibration.
Claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the known initial position of the “other” of the units can be the known first location when the claim already recites the “one” of the units being for placement at that location.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the controller can determine one or more pre-determined body-transmission parameters based on the one or more pre-determined body-transmission parameters. This is circular.
Claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-18 are directed to a “system,” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claim 1 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of a mental process and a mathematical concept, substantially as follows:
a first control mode to perform an initial calibration procedure, based on measured signal characteristics at the second skin interface unit with the at least two skin interface units placed in at least one known set of locations; and in a second control mode determine one or more predetermined body-transmission parameters, based on indication of a position of the other of the two skin interface units based on sensed signal characteristics at said second skin interface unit and the one or more pre-determined body-transmission parameters; and in a further control mode to perform a re-calibration procedure for re-determining said body-transmission parameters based on a known initial position of the two skin interface units, the known initial position of the other of the two skin interface units being the known first location, the procedure comprising: re-determining at least one of the body-transmission parameters based on the sensed signal characteristics and said known initial position of the at least two skin interface units; and correcting the pre-determined body-transmission parameters based on any differences between the at least one re-determined parameter and the corresponding pre-determined parameter.
The performing, (re)determining, and correcting steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to see a printout of e.g. the generated and coupled signals (or the reference and sensed reference signals), they would be able to determine signal characteristic based thereon, and perform the associated calculations. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the steps. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the calculations mentally or with pen and paper.
These steps also involve the mathematical concepts of signal analysis, calculation and recalculation, taking a difference, etc. These steps correspond to “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem [that] can serve the same purpose as a formula.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process or mathematical concept into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process and mathematical concept. The additional elements merely:
recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. a controller to perform processing functions), and
add insignificant extra-solution activity (the extra-solution activity of: coupling and sensing signals, storing parameters, etc.).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the corrected parameters are not outputted in any way such that a diagnostic benefit is realized. None of the units are actually repositioned based on the claimed calculations. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
further describe the abstract idea (e.g. determining a position (claim 2), detailing the parameters (claims 7, 8, and 17), determining a correction factor and applying it (claim 10), determining parameters (claim 12), modifying the blood pressure signal based on behavior pattern information (claim 10), etc.), and
further describe the extra-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (e.g. the type of unit (claims 3-7, 9, and 16), storing other parameters (claims 10 and 12), guide a user (claim 13), obtaining the known initial position (claim 18), etc.).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves another technology or technical field, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0086023 (“Tartz”).
Regarding claim 1, Tartz teaches [a]n on-body sensor system (¶ 0004), comprising: at least two skin interface units for electrically interfacing with the skin of a subject (¶ 0004), including a first skin interface unit for coupling generated signals into the body (¶ 0004), and a second skin interface unit for sensing said coupled signals at a remote location on the subject's skin (¶ 0004), one of the units for placement at a known first location on the body (¶ 0007); and a controller adapted to: control signal generation and sensing using the at least two skin interface units (Fig. 5, computer 500 including a processor 506 which performs control as described in ¶ 0089), and operable in a first control mode to perform an initial calibration procedure, based on measured signal characteristics at the second skin interface unit with the at least two skin interface units placed in at least one known set of locations (¶¶s 0006, 0007, 0050, 0066, etc., describing a known transmitting location and two or more predetermined receiving locations – also see Fig. 4C, recording S-params); and in a second control mode determine and store one or more predetermined body-transmission parameters, based on indication of a position of the other of the two skin interface units based on sensed signal characteristics at said second skin interface unit and the one or more pre-determined body-transmission parameters (¶¶s 0005, 0046: amplitude or phase angle of S-parameters; “The degree of scattering indicates an amount of attenuation of the AC electrical signal propagating through the body” – also see Fig. 4D, recording S-params), and to store a determined position of said other of the skin interface units (Fig. 4D, step 434, sending the profile to a computer, and then identifying the end of a path, which corresponds to the location of the other unit, as described in ¶¶s 0078 and 0079 – also see ¶¶s 0080+, describing using the particular location to compare to other data, which suggests that the location is stored (and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the locations for the purpose of enabling functionality that is dependent on the location (¶ 0085))); wherein the controller is operable in a further control mode to perform a re-calibration procedure for re-determining said body-transmission parameters based on a known initial position of the two skin interface units (¶¶s 0050, 0085, 0086: re-calibration when new data are incoming; ¶ 0066, “predetermined pairs of locations on the body”; Fig. 4C and related description – also see ¶ 0086, describing re-classification to determine whether any changes have been made, and ¶ 0048, describing both identified locations, e.g. “leftwrist-chest”), the known initial position of the other of the two skin interface units being said known first location (¶ 0007, the transmitting and receiving locations are predetermined on the body), the procedure comprising: controlling the first skin interface unit to generate one or more reference signals (¶ 0066); sensing the reference signals at the second skin interface unit and re-determining at least one of the body-transmission parameters based on the sensed signal characteristics and said known initial position of the at least two skin interface units (¶ 0066); and correcting the pre-determined body-transmission parameters based on any differences between the at least one re-determined parameter and the corresponding pre-determined parameter (this occurs when the device is placed at a new location and re/calibration is performed - also see e.g. ¶ 0069, describing determination of path J (as opposed to another path. I.e., a new path is selected) and then configuration for specific functionality, and ¶ 0086, periodically obtaining and re-classifying profiles).
Regarding claim 2, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the first skin interface unit has a known location (¶ 0007, a known location), and the controller is operable in the first control mode to determine a position of the second skin interface unit (identifying the end of a path, which corresponds to the location of the other unit, as described in ¶¶s 0078 and 0079), and wherein the re-calibration procedure is based on the known location of the first unit, and a known initial position of the second unit (¶ 0086, re-classification is based on known/already-determined positions of both devices).
Regarding claim 3, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein one or both of the at least two units is in the form of a body-mountable unit (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the first skin interface unit is an on-body unit for mounting against a pre-determined region of the skin of the subject, or an off-body unit for temporary placement against a pre-determined region of the skin of the subject (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0015 – also see ¶ 0007, a known location such as the wrist).
Regarding claim 5, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the first skin interface unit is a wearable unit configured for mounting to a particular part of the body (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0015 – also see ¶ 0007, a known location such as the wrist).
Regarding claim 6, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein at least the second skin interface unit is in the form of a sensor pad for mounting against the skin of the subject (Figs. 2A-2D, electrodes contacting a body channel).
Regarding claim 7, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the one or more body transmission parameters include at least one of: signal wavelength, signal propagation velocity, phase angle difference between two electrode pairs on a given one of the at least two skin interface units, signal transmission time between transmission and receipt of a signal, and signal attenuation between transmission and receipt of a signal (¶ 0005, amplitude or phase angle).
Regarding claim 8, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the pre-determined transmission parameters comprise a plurality of sets of pre-determined transmission parameters, each set corresponding to a different particular position of the skin interface unit whose position the controller is operable to determine (¶ 0078, sending the frequency-swept signal and measuring at multiple frequencies to identify different paths leading to different devices – also see ¶ 0066, describing a calibration procedure).
Regarding claim 9, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the system is for monitoring one or more physiological parameters of a subject, and wherein the first skin interface unit is for use in sensing the one or more physiological parameters (¶ 0084, heart or pulse rate, ¶ 0085, heart rate or number of steps taken).
Regarding claim 16, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the first skin interface unit a wrist mountable unit (Fig. 1A, device 101 or 106, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 18, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the known initial position of said other of the units is taken to be said stored determined position of the other of the units or is taken to be a pre-set position stored in a memory (¶ 0086, re-classification is based on known/already-determined positions of both devices).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of Tartz in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0094605 (“Sabesan”).
Regarding claim 10, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein correcting the pre-determined body-transmission parameters comprises: comparing the at least one re-determined body-transmission parameter with the corresponding pre-determined parameter and determining a parameter correction factor based on the comparison; and applying the correction factor to each of the pre-stored transmission parameters in order thereby to correct the parameters, and storing the corrected parameters in place of the pre-determined parameters.
Sabesan teaches applying a correction factor to signals of an incorrectly placed sensor (Figs. 1D and 1E, ¶¶s 0028,0029, etc.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a correction factor based on a difference in device location in Tartz (which uses parameters to determine location) as in Sabesan, and to apply such correction factor to the paths and parameters of Tartz, for the purpose of compensating for device placements in locations slightly different than those already stored/calibrated (Sabesan: ¶¶s 0028, 0029, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the controller is adapted in accordance with one control mode to guide a user in positioning one of the at least two skin interface units based on determining an indication of a current position of the unit using the sensed signal characteristics and body-transmission parameters.
Sabesan teaches providing instructions to guide a user in re/positioning a device to achieve correct placement (¶ 0027).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instructions to guide correct placement in Tartz as in Sabesan, for the purpose of ensuring the device delivers reliable performance (Sabesan: ¶ 0020).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of Tartz in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0315206 (“Schenk”)
Regarding claim 12, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Tartz further teaches wherein the initial calibration procedure comprises determining and storing a plurality of sets of transmission parameters, each set corresponding to a different particular position … of the skin interface unit whose position the controller is operable to determine (as above – also see ¶ 0066, describing different predetermined paths associated with predetermined pairs of locations on a body), but does not appear to explicitly teach each set corresponding to a different orientation (although ¶ 0051 does refer to differences in implementation, which are associated with orientation as shown in Figs. 2A-2D).
Schenk teaches selecting electrodes to account for device orientation (¶¶s 0014, 0016, 0019, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to account for device orientation in Tartz (in addition to location), based on electrode selection as in Schenk, for the purpose of making the device less susceptible to differences in orientation (Schenk: ¶ 0016) and providing resilience so that at least one strong signal is highly probable (Schenk: ¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 17, Tartz teaches all the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above. Tartz does not appear to explicitly teach wherein each set further corresponds to a different orientation of the skin skin interface unit.
Schenk teaches using different sets of parameters with different orientations of a skin interface unit (¶ 0014, using different electrodes to account for orientation differences, ¶ 0019).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as parameters, with the different positions of Tartz, different electrode choices (each location having e.g. multiple electrodes) as in Schenk, for the purpose of reducing orientation sensitivity of the body-coupled communication, and for increasing robustness and user convenience (Schenk: ¶ 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/05/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), they are not persuasive. It is not simply a matter of splitting the claim up between different modes and interpreting from there. The claim recites one of the units being for placement at a known first location, and the other unit having a known initial position at the known first location, i.e., the same location. Being in a different mode does not change the location of “the known first location.” The Office agrees that there is support for one unit having a known position and the controller being operable to determine a position of the other. But Applicant’s cited portions say nothing of the other unit taking the position of the one/first unit, so that they may both be at the known first location. Applicant’s arguments do not change what the claims actually say, and are not persuasive against the Office’s interpretation being one possible interpretation.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), they are largely not persuasive. It is unclear what is “facially clear” about Applicant’s response to the first contention of indefiniteness. One of the units is for placement at the known first location, and the other unit is a different unit – it cannot be the same unit. Regarding the response to the second contention, it is maintained that in at least one interpretation of the claims (e.g. the Office’s interpretation), the claim is circular. The same language is used. The parameters refer to each other, and are not claimed as e.g. parameters of a first mode and parameters of a second mode. And both are pre-determined parameters, not one measured parameters and one pre-determined parameters.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, they are not persuasive. ¶¶s 0048, 0050, 0066, 0085, 0086 describe re-calibration when new data are incoming, as well as re-classification to determine whether any changes have been made between predetermined pairs of locations. Applicant has not explained why this re-calibration and re-classification cannot be the claimed re-calibration. Tartz explicitly contemplates one of the devices being moved to a new location and creating a new path and profile associated with a new (re)calibration (¶ 0086). The new path is not necessarily between two unknown locations, but may be between e.g. one known location and one unknown location. The new path can be determined based on known initial positions of two devices because the parameters associated with the one known location are still used.
The term “re-calibration” has not been construed inconsistently with its plain meaning, and Applicant does not provide a special definition in the specification.
All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408)918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791