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 .
Claims Pending
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/12/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 11/12/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
The previous withdrawal of claims 4-7 and 14-20 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 8-13 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Interpretation - Withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/12/2025, have been fully considered, and the previous interpretation withdrawn.
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 claims are generally directed towards a method of transmitting information regarding medication ingested by a user. The transmission is performed by digestible circuits that are covered by a digestible materials.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez (US Pub. No. 20090009332) hereinafter Nunez, and further in view of Hafezi (US Pub. No. 20100298668) hereinafter Hafezi and Savage (US Pub. No. 20200229758) hereinafter Savage.
Regarding claim 1, Nunez discloses a method (Par. 41, Fig. 13 (the manner in which the device transmits)) comprising:
transmitting, by a first circuit (Par. 41, (RFID tag – 314)) to outside a user's body, information related to a first medication ingested by the user (Par. 41, “In one embodiment, second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system such that additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled”), the first circuit being covered by a first thickness of a first material (Par. 41, “In one embodiment, second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal” (the coating layer modified within the gastrointestinal system is a digestible material)) (Fig. 13, (observable that RFID – 314 is covered by second coating layer – 308)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material)); and
transmitting, by a second circuit to outside the user's body (Par. 41, (RFID tag – 302)), information related to a second medication ingested by the user (Par. 41, “After first coating layer 306 is modified within the subject's gastrointestinal system, RFID tag 302 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of digestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled.”), the second circuit being covered by a second thickness of a second material and the first thickness of the first material (Par. 41, “After first coating layer 306 is modified within the subject's gastrointestinal system, RFID tag 302 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of digestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled”(the coating layer modified within the gastrointestinal system is a digestible material)) (Fig. 13, (observable that RFID – 302 is covered by second coating layer – 308 and first coating layer 314 in a vertical direction)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material)).
Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the first circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user and the second circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user.
However, Nunez does teach the circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user (Par. 7, “Other conventional methods for monitoring medication compliance include a digestible RFID tag that breaks up within the gastrointestinal system when the medicine is processed”).
Hafezi teaches the circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user (Par. 21, “In certain embodiments, one or more of the ingestible materials of the circuits are digestible materials.”).
Nunez and Hafezi are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez with that of Hafezi to explicitly include the first circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user and the second circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user through the combination of references and making both RFID tags of Nunez digestible, as digestible RFID’s are known in the art (Nunez (Par. 7)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of preventing adverse side effects (Hafezi (Par. 7, 16)).
Modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose a first digestible material and a second digestible material.
However, Nunez highly suggests a first digestible material (Par. 41, “In one embodiment, second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal” (it is highly suggested that the coating layer modified within the gastrointestinal system is a digestible material)) and a second digestible material (Par. 41, “After first coating layer 306 is modified within the subject's gastrointestinal system, RFID tag 302 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of digestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled”) (The embodiment of Par. 35 states “coating layer 112 is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system”, which highly suggests that when Nunez states “second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system” (Par. 41), that Nunez also means that coating layers 308 and 306 are also able to be absorbed within the patients gastrointestinal system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez and Hafezi with that of Nunez to explicitly include a first digestible material and a second digestible material through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing signals as a result of a direct reaction with the GI system indicative of the digestion of the medicine by the user (Nunez (Par. 41)).
Modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first circuit stops transmitting the information after a predetermined duration in response to the first circuit being dissolved.
However, Nunez does teach information after a predetermined duration in response to the circuit being disintegrated (Par. 45, “As shown in FIG. 20, RFID tag device 400 is modified as medication tablet 414 is digested within the patient's gastrointestinal system. Substrate layer 404 and medication tablet 414 are dissolved or disintegrated in an alternate embodiment wherein the circuit stops transmitting the during the digestion process, resulting in the breakup of RFID tag 402 into disconnected pieces, such as piece 430 and piece 432 of RFID tag 402. The loss or cessation of the signal due to the breakup of RFID tag 402, as determined by the external receiver and/or the external transmitter, facilitates confirming that medication tablet 414 has been digested by the subject”) (Par. 41, “FIG. 20 shows a breakup, such as a disassociation, dissolution or disintegration, of RFID tag 402 after digestion by the subject of the medication tablet including RFID tag device 400.”) (Par. 7, “Other conventional methods for monitoring medication compliance include a digestible RFID tag that breaks up within the gastrointestinal system when the medicine is processed, resulting in a loss of the RFID signal and, thus, an indication that the medicine has been digested”).
However, Savage teaches wherein the first circuit stops transmitting the information after a predetermined duration in response to the first circuit being dissolved (Par. 75, “As dissolution of the tablet/pill composition 312 exposes metal layers 304 and 306, power is supplied to the IC of the IEM 300, which begins to operate and continues to operate until metal layers 304 and 306 or the circuit itself are sufficiently dissolved by digestive processes and acids to become non-functional. When power is supplied, the IEM 300 may transmit its identifying signal (e.g., IEM identifier code) via transmitter electrodes 308 and 310. Eventually, any remains of the IEM 300 are naturally excreted from the body.”).
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez and Hafezi with that of Savage to explicitly include wherein the first circuit stops transmitting the information after a predetermined duration in response to the first circuit being dissolved through the combination of references as it would have yielded the same or similar results of providing information regarding the digestion of the device (Savage (Par. 75))(Nunez (Par. 41)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Nunez highly suggests wherein the transmitting by the first circuit begins as a result of the first circuit being contacted by the gastric juices of the user (Nunez (Par. 41, “second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system such that additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled.” (signal generated as a result of modification of the coating layer)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material)) (Par. 53, (GI pH))(Par. 55, “FIG. 35 shows medication tablet 702 with RFID tag device 700 after entering the patient's gastrointestinal system. Within the patient's gastrointestinal system, the coating layer is modified to allow RFID tag device 700 to emit a RF signal that is detectable by external receiver and transmitter 706 indicating or confirming that patient 704 has ingested medication tablet 702…” (observable in Fig. 35 that the device is in the stomach))).
Hafezi further teaches transmitting as a result of contact by gastric juices (Hafezi (Par. 29, 30, (activation after contact with stomach fluid)) (Par. 41 (stomach acid is located in the stomach))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Nunez and Hafezi to include wherein the transmitting by the first circuit begins as a result of the first circuit being contacted by the gastric juices of the user through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly activating at the desired location (Hafezi (Par. 30, 42)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Nunez highly suggests wherein the transmitting by the second circuit begins as a result of the second circuit being contacted by the gastric juices of the user (Nunez (Par. 41, “second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system such that additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled.”(signal generated as a result of modification of the coating layer)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material)) (Par. 53, (GI pH))(Par. 55, “FIG. 35 shows medication tablet 702 with RFID tag device 700 after entering the patient's gastrointestinal system. Within the patient's gastrointestinal system, the coating layer is modified to allow RFID tag device 700 to emit a RF signal that is detectable by external receiver and transmitter 706 indicating or confirming that patient 704 has ingested medication tablet 702…” (observable in Fig. 35 that the device is in the stomach))).
Hafezi further teaches transmitting as a result of contact by gastric juices (Hafezi (Par. 29, 30, (activation after contact with stomach fluid)) (Par. 41 (stomach acid is located in the stomach))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Nunez and Hafezi to include wherein the transmitting by the second circuit begins as a result of the second circuit being contacted by the gastric juices of the user through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly activating at the desired location (Hafezi (Par. 30, 42)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez in view of Hafezi and Savage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Euliano (US Pat. No. 10521561) hereinafter Euliano.
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first digestible material and the second digestible material are the same material.
However, Euliano teaches wherein the first digestible material (coating – 264) and the second digestible material (Coating -254) are the same material (Col. 8, lines 29-44 (enteric coatings)) (Col. 7, lines 15-26)).
Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Euliano are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Euliano to explicitly include wherein the first digestible material and the second digestible material are the same material through the substitution of material types as it would have yielded the predictable result of breaking down at the proper location within the digestive system of the user (Euliano (Col. 8, lines 29-44)).
Modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the first circuit transmits the information related to the first medication after the first digestible material is dissolved.
However, Nunez highly suggests the first circuit transmits the information related to the first medication after the first digestible material is dissolved (Nunez (Par. 41, “second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system such that additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled.”(signal generated as a result of modification of the coating layer)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material))).
Hafezi further teaches transmitting as a result of contact by gastric juices (Hafezi (Par. 29, 30, (activation after contact with stomach fluid)) (Par. 41 (stomach acid is located in the stomach))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Euliano with that of Nunez and Hafezi to explicitly include the first circuit transmits the information related to the first medication after the first digestible material is dissolved through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly activating at the desired location (Hafezi (Par. 30, 42)) and provide an indication regarding the digestion of the medication (Nunez (Par. 41)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez in view of Hafezi and Savage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skulason (US Pub. No. 20020173993) hereinafter Skulason.
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nunez further discloses wherein the information related to a first medication comprises a notification that the user has ingested the first medication (Nunez (Par. 41, “additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled” (signal that ingestion has occurred))).
Nunez fails to explicitly disclose an alert which includes a notification regarding restricted privileges of the user.
However, Skulason teaches an alert which includes a notification regarding restricted privileges of the user (Par. 23, “Accordingly, a drug advice expert represents drugs as nodes in a graph in computer a display window, and graphically represents a property associated with a first represented drug.”) (Par. 28, “the displayed property may be a warning associated with the drug. Such a warning may include any or all of, and is not limited to, the following: allergic reactions, pregnancy, lactation, QT-interval prolongation, impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle/machinery, drug dependence, competitive sports, photosensitivity, general warnings, side effects, overdose, affect on at least one organ, and food/drug interactions”).
Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Skulason are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Skulason to include an alert which includes a notification regarding restricted privileges of the user through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the user with an indication regarding adverse interactions of ingested medication (Skulason (Par. 28)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez in view of Hafezi and Savage as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang (US Pub. No. 20230061826) hereinafter Wang.
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage teach the method of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Wang teaches wherein the transmitting by the first circuit ends before the transmitting by the second circuit begins (Par. 280, “the RFID chip 202 of the ingestible apparatus 100 may continuously transmit RF signals during the entire health-related-substance-delivery process. In the initial state T.sub.A, the switches S.sub.1 and S.sub.2 are configured to their open or off configuration and the RFID chip 202 transmits a first RF signal with a first set of property settings (such as amplitude, frequency, modulation, coding, and/or the like). When the shell 102 and the coating 104 are sufficiently deformed and the ingestible apparatus 100 is in the state T.sub.C, the first switch S.sub.1 is configured to its closed or on configuration by the gastrointestinal content which triggers the RFID chip 202 to transmit a second RF signal with a second set of property settings”).
Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Wang are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Wang to include wherein the transmitting by the first circuit of Nunez and Hafezi ends before the transmitting by the second circuit of Nunez and Hafezi begins through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of directly informing the user regarding the status of the device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez in view of Hafezi and Savage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis (US Pub. No. 20030198677) hereinafter Lewis.
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different thicknesses (Par. 81, 83 (varying thickness and release rate)) (Par.85, Fig. 6A-B (varied Layer thickness)) (Par. 93 (differing release profiles)).
Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Lewis are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Lewis to include wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different thicknesses through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of customizing the release profile of the material (Lewis (Par. 81, 93)).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunez in view of Hafezi and Savage as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belsky (US Pub. No. 20080188837) hereinafter Belsky.
Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, by a third circuit to outside the user's body, information related to a third medication ingested by the user.
However, Nunez does teach transmitting, by a circuit (Nunez (Par. 41, (RFID))) to outside the user's body, information related to a medication ingested by the user (Nunez (Par. 41, “In one embodiment, second coating layer 308 is modified within the gastrointestinal system before first coating layer 306 is modified within the gastrointestinal system such that additional RFID tag 314 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of ingestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled. After first coating layer 306 is modified within the subject's gastrointestinal system, RFID tag 302 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of digestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled.”)).
Belsky teaches three layers (Fig. 15, Par. 357, “Further optionally, system 30 comprises a third film 46C, which dissolves at a pH characteristic of a still more distal portion of the GI tract, such as the large intestine (e.g., a pH value of between about 7.5 and about 8.0 for the large intestine), thereby releasing a third portion 36C of drug 36. In this manner, specific drug portions, or even different drugs 36A, 36B, and 36C may be targeted to different portions of the GI tract. Alternatively or additionally, the pH values are selected to release a first portion of drug 36 in the small intestine, and a second portion in the large intestine.”).
Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Belsky are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with ingestible devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, and Savage with that of Belsky to include transmitting, by a third circuit to outside the user's body, information related to a third medication ingested by the user through the combination of references and the addition of another layer of the circuit and medication of Nunez located immediately below the first coating layer (Nunez (Fig. 13 (below first coating layer -306)) as it would have yielded the predictable result of enabling the targeting of an additional region of the GI tract (Belsky (Par. 357)).
Modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the third circuit being digestible by the gastric juices of the user.
However, Hafezi further teaches the circuit being digestible by gastric juices of the user (Hafezi (Par. 21, “In certain embodiments, one or more of the ingestible materials of the circuits are digestible materials.”)).
Belsky further teaches three layers (As indicated above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Belsky with that of Belsky and Hafezi to include the third circuit being digestible by the gastric juices of the user for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above and through the combination of references and the addition of another layer of the circuit and medication of Nunez located immediately below the first coating layer (Nunez (Fig. 13 (below first coating layer -306)) as it would have yielded the predictable result of targeting and receiving feedback regarding an additional region of the GI tract (Belsky (Par. 357)).
Modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the third circuit being covered by a third thickness of a third digestible material, the second thickness of the second digestible material, and the first thickness of the first digestible material.
However, Nunez does teach the circuit being covered by the second thickness of the second digestible material and the first thickness of the first digestible material (Nunez (Par. 41, “After first coating layer 306 is modified within the subject's gastrointestinal system, RFID tag 302 generates a signal that is transmitted to an external receiver indicative of digestion by the subject of the medication to which multiple RFID tag assembly 310 is coupled”(the coating layer modified within the gastrointestinal system is a digestible material)) (Fig. 13, (observable that RFID – 302 is covered by second coating layer – 308 and first coating layer 314 in a vertical direction)) (Par. 35 “coating layer…” “…is modified, such as dissolved or absorbed, within the patient's gastrointestinal system” (the coating layer being modified within the gastrointestinal system also means the coating layer is dissolved or absorbed within the gastrointestinal system, meaning that it is a digestible material))).
Belsky further teaches the circuit (Belsky (Fig. 15 (control component – 14))) being covered by a thickness of a third digestible material (Belsky (Fig. 15, drug – 36c)), the second thickness of the second digestible material (Belsky (Fig. 15, drug - 36b)), and the first thickness of the first digestible material (Belsky (Fig. 15, drug – 36a (observable that the control component -14 is covered by drug 36a,b,c in the vertical direction))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Belsky with that of Belsky to include the third circuit of Hafezi being covered by a third thickness of a third digestible material, the second thickness of the second digestible material of Nunez, and the first thickness of the first digestible material of Nunez through the combination of references and the addition of another layer of the ingestible circuit of Hafezi and material of Nunez located immediately below the structure identified as the first coating layer (Nunez (Fig. 13 (below first coating layer -306, which is below both coating layers)) as it would have yielded the predictable result of targeting an additional region of the GI tract (Belsky (Par. 357)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nunez fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Belsky further teaches wherein the first digestible material (Belsky (Par. 357, Drug – 36a)), the second digestible material (Belsky (Par. 357, Drug – 36a)), and the third digestible material (Belsky (Par. 357, Drug – 36a)) are the same material (Belsky (Par. 36, (same or different drugs))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nunez, Hafezi, Savage, and Belsky with that of Belsky to include wherein the first digestible material, the second digestible material, and the third digestible material are the same material through the combination of references and the addition of a third material for the reasoning as indicated in claim 12 above and it would have yielded the predictable result of targeting an additional region of the GI tract (Belsky (Par. 357)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025, regarding the previous 103 rejection, have been fully considered but they are deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that the prior art does not teach the added limitations to claim, have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As the limitation was not previously addressed, limitation has been addressed in the 103 rejection as indicated above.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, rely on the arguments related to the independent claim, and as such are also deemed as not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sarkar (US Pub. No. 20210128013) and Kartoun (US Pub. No. 20220168551).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791