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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/1/2025 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 6, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12183178 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/1/2025. Currently claims 21-34 and 38-43 are pending with claims 39-43 newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed 10/1/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claims 25 and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claims 25 and 31 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-12 filed 10/1/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of:
Claim(s) 21 under non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable for being anticipated by claim 1 of US Pat. 12183178
Claim(s) 27 and 34-37 under non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable for being obviated by claim 1 of US Pat. 12183178 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer. The previous double patenting rejections of claims 21, 27 and 34-37 has been withdrawn.
Priority
The requirements to claim priority to AP 17378657 (now patent 12183178) have been addressed and are now met; therefore, this claim of priority is recognized as discussed in further detail in the previous petition decision mailed on 3/9/2026.
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:
“the controller unit being configured to relay instructional programs to the modules and units which cause the modules and units to operate, the controller unit receiving a vitals measurement from each sensor module and, upon detection of at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters, producing at least one corresponding output signal related to the wearer’s at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters” recited in claim 21, 39 and
“the controller unit being configured to relay instructional programs to the modules and units which cause the modules and units to operate, the controller unit receiving a vitals measurement from each sensor module and, upon detection of at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters, producing at least one corresponding output signal related to the wearer’s at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters” recited in claim 27 and
Closest support for this limitation can be found in paras 12 and 32 of applicant’s specification received on 11/5/2021.
Para 12 states the following:“The controller unit comprising at least a processor, a computer memory storage unit, a volatile memory unit, and circuitry to interconnect the components of the controller unit. The processor executes the instructions to the modules to collect data, receives the data from those modules, inputs that data into corresponding algorithms to determine the wearer’s vitals measurements, and then sends corresponding signals to the communication unit.”
Para 32 states the following:
“the sensor modules 120 are controlled by the controller unit which has a processor, a computer memory storage unit, a volatile memory unit, and circuitry connecting the controller unit to the modules and units within the housing structure 110.”
Based on these sections, a controller unit is understood to be a processor and memory and their equivalents.
“a communication unit that is located within the interior of the housing structure and receives the at least one corresponding output signal from the controller unit and is adapted to relay the at least one corresponding output signal to the law enforcement official to alert the law enforcement official of the wearer’s medical issue” recited in claim 21, 39 and
“a communication unit that is located within the interior of at least one of the housing structures and receives the at least one corresponding output signal from the controller unit and is adapted to relay the at least one corresponding output signal to the law enforcement official to alert the law enforcement official of the wearer’s medical issue” recited in claim 27
The best section(s) defining this limitation can be found in para 13 of applicant’s received specification which states the following:
“The communication unit comprises at least one of a display screen, a speaker, a wi-fi communicator, a mobile network communicator, and a Bluetooth communicator.”
Thus, a communication unit as claimed is interpreted as being at least one of: a display screen, a speaker, a wi-fi communicator, a mobile network communicator, and a Bluetooth communicator and their equivalents.
“a rechargeable power unit located within the interior of the housing structure that is accessed by a port on the exterior of the housing structure, provides power to the vitals monitoring apparatus’s other modules and units” recited in claim 21, 39 and
“a rechargeable power unit located within the interior of at least one of the housing structures that is accessed by a port on the exterior of at least one of the housing structures, provides power to the vitals monitoring apparatus’s other modules and units” recited in claim 27
The best support for this limitation can be found in paras 14 and 50 of applicant’s received specification
Para 14 states the following:
“In a further embodiment of the present invention, the vitals monitoring handcuff apparatus includes a rechargeable power unit. The power unit is encased within the housing structure of the present invention; however, in some embodiments, the housing structure provides access to the power unit via a port designed to receive power via an external power source. One example of the external power source is a cable which is adapted to couple with the power unit on one end and a wall socket outlet on the other end. In alternative embodiments of the present invention, the power unit may include a battery and inductive charging system and provide no access to the power unit via a port.”
Para 50 states the following:
“In other embodiments, the inductive charging is accomplished by the power unit comprising a battery connected to charge receiving components and those receiving components being charged by an external charging apparatus that the vitals monitoring handcuff apparatus may be placed on in order to initiate charging the battery within the power unit. In further embodiments, the inductive charging battery, charge receiving components, and external charging apparatus use either tightly-coupled electromagnetic inductive charging (also known as non-radiative charging) or radiative electromagnetic charging.”
Based on these sections a rechargeable power unit as claimed is a battery and inductive charging system and their equivalents.
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.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 23-24 and 39 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 19016619 (reference application with claims as currently amended being similar to US pub 20250143641) hereafter known as AP ‘619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because AP ‘619 anticipates all the limitations in these claims as outlined in the table directly below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim in AP 17520250
Where found in Copending AP ‘619
Claim 21
Claim 1
Claim 23
Claim 1
Claim 24
Claim 11
Claim 39
Claim 1
Claims 27 and 29-30 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of AP ‘619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because AP ‘619 obviates all the limitations as outlined in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim in AP 17520250
Where found in Copending AP ‘619
Modification / further clarification (if needed)
Claim 27
Claim 1
However, AP ‘619 only discloses one housing and not two housings. Therefore, AP ‘619 fails to fully disclose “two housing structures individually attached to one cuff of the set of handcuffs, each having
an exterior and interior, each adapted to be coupled and uncoupled with the set of handcuffs
used by a law enforcement official for detainment of a wearer, the interior of the housing
structures containing a plurality of modules and units, the exterior of the housing structures
constructed to generally have a complimentary shape to the set of handcuffs, the exterior
of the housing structures configured to contact the wearer's wrist while the set of handcuffs
is engaged in a locked position on the wearer's wrist during detainment, and the housing
structures being constructed to allow access to the set of handcuffs locking mechanism”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second housing similar to the first housing recited in claim 1 of AP ‘619 because absent unpredictable results this is a mere duplication of elements which has been deemed an obvious modification [see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)].
Claim 29
Claim 1
Claim 30
Claim 11
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reese et al (US 20120298119) hereafter known as Reese.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 39:
Reese discloses:
A vitals monitoring apparatus [see Fig. 1A-3 and abstract… “There is provided a device and system for restraining detainees through devices attached to the detainees and configured to administer electrical shocks when certain predetermined conditions occur.”] coupled with a set of handcuffs [see Fig. 1A-3 elements 120 and para 68… “a restraining member 120”] comprising:
a housing structure [see labelled figure below rejection to this claim which includes element 152 and para 68… “a housing 152”] having an exterior [see labelled housing in labelled figure below rejection to this claim which is an exterior] and interior [see para 73… “a housing portion 152 for housing a power supply, electric shock component and sensors” Housing elements implies an interior.], adapted to be coupled and uncoupled with the set of handcuffs used by a law enforcement official for detainment of a wearer [see Fig 1B and 2 and para 72… “an arcuate restraining member is hingably coupled at a hinge point 172 to rigid receiving member 130 while a clasping end 173 of the restraining member 120 is receivably inserted into an aperture in the receiving member 130.”], the interior of the housing structure containing a plurality of modules and units [see para 73… “a housing portion 152 for housing a power supply, electric shock component and sensors”], the exterior of the housing structure constructed to generally have a complimentary shape to the set of handcuffs [see labelled figure below rejection to this claim], the exterior of the housing structure configured to contact the wearer's wrist while the set of handcuffs is engaged in a locked position on the wearer's wrist during detainment, and the housing structure being constructed to allow access to the set of handcuff' s locking mechanism [see Fig. 1B-2 and para 74… “The restraining member 120 and receiving member 130 comprise at least a first open position where a detainee may insert a portion of a body part such as a wrist, between the restraining member 120 and a receiving member 130 when in their hingedly open position. In one embodiment the restraining member 120 and receiving member 130 are designed to at least partially circumferentially surround the provided portion of the detainee's body when in a closed position.” And para 80… “The central housing portion 452 also provides for a switch mechanism 605 that may be actuated in an on/off manner by tool 135 to respectively energize or de-energize the electric shock component disposed within the housing portion 452. In some embodiments, the same tool 135 that actuates the switch mechanism 605 also operates locking mechanisms 137 to allow selective opening and closing of restraining members 420”];
a sensor module [see Fig. 1A-1B elements 1005 and 155 and para 62… “As sensors 1005 are coupled 1006 to the detainee interface 155 and/or electric shock component 150, sensors may measure, process and/or store aspects of application of electric shocks to the detainee to whom the restraining device 110 is attached.” And para 43… “a detainee interface 155 that comprises a current delivery interface such as electrodes”] having an interior portion of the sensor module located within the interior of the housing structure [see Fig. 1A element 1005] and an exterior portion of the sensor module [see Fig. 1B element 155] protruding through the exterior of the housing structure, the exterior portion of the sensor module making contact with the wearer's wrist while the set of handcuffs are engaged in the locked position on the wearer [see Fig. 1B], and
the sensor module comprising a sensor adapted to measure at least one vitals measurement and continuously monitor that vitals measurement, wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a SpO2 sensor, photoplethysmography sensor, a bioimpedance sensor, a dermal temperature sensor, an electrocardiogram sensor, and an electrodermal activity sensor [see para 61… “operation of sensors 1005 of the restraining device 110 which may include any appropriate sensors such as clocks, light sensors, voltage sensors, charge status monitors, motion sensors, potentiometers, status indicators, accelerometers, strain or pressure sensors, inclinometers, location sensing devices such as a GPS devices, audio sensors/microphones, cameras, magnetic field sensors; moisture sensors; EKG/ECG sensors”];
a controller unit [see Fig. 1A element 160 and para 57… “A generalized embodiment of a restraining device 110 comprises a shock generator component 150 coupled to a control system 160; sensors and I/O with communications interface 1005”] that is located within the interior of the housing structure [see Fig. 1A], the controller unit being configured to relay instructional programs to the modules and units which cause the modules and units to operate [see para 60… “The control system 160 directs the operation of the restraining device 110. The control system 160 may interface with and control any of the individual components of the restraining system 100”],
the controller unit receiving a vitals measurement from each sensor module and, upon detection of at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters [see para 118… “If the detainee's measured EKG is not measured to be in a safe range for administration of a shock (for instance, if fibrillation or arrhythmia is detected), the shock from the electric shock component 150 will be suppressed. In an alternate embodiment, if the measured EKG signal from the detainee interface 155 indicates a health issue, the control system 160 may send a message to an external entity 1100 through the communication interface 1007, indicating that the particular detainee is experiencing a health issue.”],
producing at least one corresponding output signal related to the wearer's at least one vitals measurement outside of given parameters [see para 118… “If the detainee's measured EKG is not measured to be in a safe range for administration of a shock (for instance, if fibrillation or arrhythmia is detected), the shock from the electric shock component 150 will be suppressed. In an alternate embodiment, if the measured EKG signal from the detainee interface 155 indicates a health issue, the control system 160 may send a message to an external entity 1100 through the communication interface 1007, indicating that the particular detainee is experiencing a health issue.”];
a communication unit that is located within the interior of the housing structure and receives the at least one corresponding output signal from the controller unit and is adapted to relay the at least one corresponding output signal to the law enforcement official to alert the law enforcement official of the wearer's medical issue [see Fig. 1A element 1005 (i.e. communication unit) and para 61… “Input/Output aspects of the restraining device 110 are also provided for by sensors and I/O 1005, and in various embodiments, may include keys, buttons, keyboards, electrical terminals or connectors, electrical charging ports, data ports such as a USB port, touch screens, displays, speakers, transducers, vibratory agitators, light emitting diodes, strobe lights, infrared light emitting diodes and the like.”]; and
a rechargeable power unit located within the interior of the housing structure that is accessed by a port on the exterior of the housing structure, provides power to the vitals monitoring apparatus's other modules and units, and having a receiver which connects with an exterior power source via the port [see Fig. 1A element 200 and para 95… “If desired, the power source 200 may be rechargeable and/or replaceable. As mentioned previously, recharging may be provided through an inductive coupling or through a wired contact to an additional power entity.”].
PNG
media_image1.png
644
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese in view of Leussler et al (EP 3841972) hereafter known as Leussler.
Reese discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 39 as outlined above.
However, Reese fails to disclose “wherein the sensor is adapted to detect at least one vitals measurement without being in direct contact with the wearer” as recited by claim 40.
Leussler discloses in the analogous art of vital sign diagnostics [see para 1… “The invention also relates to a system for the detection of vital signs of a pateient”] that a capacitive electrodes are known to provide the advantage of allowing for measurements even through insulating materials [see para 2… “Capacitive electrodes for the evaluation of human body bioelectric potentials are a very attractive alternative to conventional galvanically coupled electrodes for diagnostic applications especially when the signals have to be measured through insulating materials like cloth, which would greatly simplify the current procedure”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reese by modifying Reese’s electrodes to be capacitive sensors similar to that disclosed by Leussler (i.e. thereby reciting “wherein the sensor is adapted to detect at least one vitals measurement without being in direct contact with the wearer”) because this allow for ECG measurements even when interference occurs from insulating materials that might separate the electrodes from direct contact with the skin.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reese in view of Albert et al (US 20210267525) hereafter known as Albert.
Reese discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 39.
However, Reese is silent as to many of the details of the electrodes and fails to disclose “wherein the sensor module further comprises at least one extendable and retractable sensor” as recited by claim 43.
Albert discloses in the analogous art of ECG diagnostics [see para 5… “Described herein are ECG sensing devices, systems, and methods for sensing and analyzing an ECG of an individual. In some embodiments, the devices, systems, and methods described herein comprise a mobile computing device including, for example, a smartphone and/or a wearable computing device.”] that a known configuration for ECG electrodes includes a retractable electrode that is externally retractable and/or detachable (i.e. extendable and retractable) for the purpose of providing ease in use of allowing a device to perform additional other tasks in addition to using the electrode [see Fig. 4A-4B element 408 and para 52… “FIGS. 4A-4B show posterior views of an embodiment of an ECG sensing device 400 having an external retractable electrode 408 that extends from the housing on a wire (shown retracted in 4B). When not in use, the wire may be retracted into the ECG sensing device 400 and the electrode 408 may be coupled to the case. When in use, the retractable electrode 408 may be pulled from the case and may, for example, contact the patient's leg, so that the case and smartphone may be held and viewed by the patient.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Reese by making the electrode externally retractable and/or detachable similar to that disclosed by Albert as this will provide the advantage of allowing Reese to perform other tasks while at the same time using the electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23-24, 27, 29-30 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is overcome as set forth in this Office action.
Claim 22, 25-26, 28, 31-34, 38, 41-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21 is the broadest of the indicated allowable subject matter. Claim 21 recites a vitals monitoring apparatus coupled with a set of handcuffs. The closest prior art is Leussler. Leussler discloses the invention substantially as claimed as outlined in the rejection to claim 39 above (which shares many of the same claim limitations as claim 21). However, Leussler fails to fully discloses the limitation(s) “at least two sensor modules having an interior portion of each sensor module located within the interior of the housing structure and an exterior portion of each sensor module protruding through the exterior of the housing structure, the exterior portion of each sensor module making contact with the wearer's wrist while the set of handcuffs are engaged in the locked position on the wearer, and each sensor module comprising a sensor adapted to measure at least one vitals measurement and continuously monitor that vitals measurement, wherein each sensor is selected from the group consisting of a SpO2 sensor, photoplethysmography sensor, a bioimpedance sensor, a dermal temperature sensor, an electrocardiogram sensor, and an electrodermal activity sensor, and wherein at least two different types of sensors from the group are selected to be used”. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Leussler obviates these deficiencies. It is important to note that the missing limitations in combination or alone do not by themselves define the invention over the prior art. Rather, it is the combination of the missing limitations with all the other limitations of claim 21 together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations recited in claim 21 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792