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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-31 in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 32-34 and 41-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 2, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 24, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21: “in in a Cartesian grid” should read as “in a Cartesian grid”
Claim 21: “each pair of adjacent electrode” should read as “each pair of adjacent electrodes”
Claim 21: “which membrane: (a) of uniform thickness…” should read as “wherein the membrane: (a) has uniform thickness…"
Claim 24 ends with a semicolon, and should instead end with a period.
Claim 27 recites Bluetooth, which is a trade name. As per the Bluetooth Brand Guide for Bluetooth Trademarks, the first and most prominent use of the term “Bluetooth” should be followed by a registered copyright symbol (®).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not show the following:
Claim 21: “a non-conductive cover material positioned over the outward surface of the homogeneous, compressible, non-ferrite and compressible membrane.”
Therefore, the above feature must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 29 and dependent claims thereof 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re. Claim 21: Claim 21 possesses multiple issues of indefiniteness.
The following highlighted terms are not provided with sufficient antecedent basis:
“the size”
“the tactile pressure”
“the operator”
“the housing measurements”
“the space”
“the outward facing surface of the electrode grid”
“the entire surface of each pair of adjacent electrode”
“the entire surface area of the Cartesian grid of electrodes”
“the outward surface of the homogeneous, compressible, non-ferrite and compressible membrane;” Examiner further notes that such a phrase has two instances of the term “compressible.”
“the outward facing surface of the sensor”
“the sensor surface;” Examiner notes that it is further unclear if this refers to the outward facing surface of the sensor recited previously.
“the electromechanical properties”
“the electric field”
“the capacitive coupling”
“the relevant pairs of coplanar electrodes”
“the sensor input device”
“the pressure imposed upon the sensor surface”
“the varying composition”
“the underlying tissue structure;” Examiner notes that it is unclear if this phrase refers to “lesions underlying the surface of the skin or other soft tissue” recited in the preamble.
“the location”
“the area of skin”
“the signals”
“the pressure imposed”
“the perceived capacitance”
“the adjacent relevant electron pairs”
Additionally, claim 21 recites a controller disposed within the housing of the device, wherein the only antecedent basis for “the device” is “capacitive tactile sensor device” recited at the beginning of the claim. Claim 21 further states that the controller disposed within the device is configured to “transmit to the device.” It is unclear how a component within a device transmits data to itself.
Re. Claim 29: Claim 29 recites the limitation "the electron plane." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 21, 22, 24-26, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Sarvazyan et al. (US 20040267165 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Sarvazyan) in view of
Otagaki et al. (US 20190196624 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Otagaki) in further view of
Egorov et al. (US 8069735 B1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Egorov).
Re. Claim 21: Sarvazyan teaches a capacitive tactile sensor device for detecting, documenting, measuring and mapping the size, shape and location of lesions underlying the surface of the skin or other soft tissue in a subject by measuring variations in the tactile pressure of the skin or other tissue surface (Abstract; Fig. 3),
comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1A-1C: housing 13)
having at least one exposure window (Fig. 1B: see portion of exposed tactile sensor array 12)
and exposed conductive surfaces placed so that the operator or the device will be in contact with the conductive surfaces at all times while operating the device (Figs. 1A-1C: as best understood, exposed conductive surfaces (i.e., sensor array 12) are placed such that the device is in contact with (e.g., structurally connected to a portion thereof) the conductive surfaces).
Sarvazyan does not teach the invention comprising a substrate located within the housing measurements comprising a plurality of pairs of separate coplanar, co-located electrodes, arranged in in a Cartesian grid, on an electrically non-conductive material.
Otagaki teaches analogous art in the technology of capacitive pressure sensing (Abstract). Otagaki further teaches the invention comprising a substrate located within the housing measurements comprising a plurality of pairs of separate coplanar, co-located electrodes, arranged in in a Cartesian grid, on an electrically non-conductive material (Fig. 1: plurality of capacitive sensors 105 arranged akin to Applicant’s Fig. 1, e.g., in a Cartesian grid; Fig. 2: each capacitive sensor comprises a first electrode 210 and second electrode 215; Fig. 3: electrodes mounted on PCB 315).
Sarvazyan states that a variety of pressure sensors used in the tactile breast imager may be based on a variety of different types of sensors and further provides an exemplary capacitive sensor (Sarvazyan, Paragraph 0045). Otagaki teaches a capacitive sensor which performs the same function (see citations above), only differing in construction. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the capacitive sensing structure disclosed by Otagaki for the capacitive sensor array of Sarvazyan. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another (the capacitive pressure sensor of Sarvazyan for the capacitive pressure sensor of Otagaki) producing a predictable result (implementation in a device utilizing a capacitive pressure sensor) renders the claim obvious.
Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki further teaches the invention configured such that any two adjacent electrodes are electrically independent and can be stimulated independently by an externally generated stimulating voltage or current signal, creating a capacitor between each such electrode pair (Fig. 7: AC signal generator multiplexing; Paragraph 0045: “Before a measurement is started, the central processing unit (CPU) control system sets up the analog multiplexers 72 and 77 to select a particular element in the array to be measured as well as configures the offset and gain correction factors for that pixel. Once these parameters are set, AC signal generator 71 generates a sine wave with the frequency between about 50 kHz to about 200 kHz. The frequency can be varied depending on the sensor size and the array scanning rate. The output signal from the sensor element is compared with a signal from a reference capacitor and after amplifying/rectifying in block 76, a net signal is sent to the integrator 75. After integrator 75 there is placed an analog-to-digital converter, which captures the final output signal proportionally to the force applied above the sensing element. Utilizing a cross-multiplexing technique allows minimizing electrical and mechanical components in the tactile pressure array”).
Otagaki, in teaching further detail regarding the incorporated conductive array, further teaches the space above the outward surface of the electrode grid serving as a dielectric (Fig. 3: gap 310);
a layer of insulating material positioned over the outward facing surface of the electrode grid (Fig. 3: gap 310 filled with material as described in Paragraph 0027: “The gap 310 may comprise a dielectric layer and/or other material capable of compression and/or dispersion when pressure is applied”);
a homogenous, compressible, non-ferrite and non-conductive membrane covering the insulating layer positioned over the outward facing surface of the electrode grid (Fig. 3: first substrate 300, as described in Paragraph 0029: “The first substrate 300 may comprise a protective material, such as a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover to the second substrate 305”),
which membrane:
(a) of uniform thickness across the entire surface of each pair of adjacent electrode forming a capacitor, and across the entire surface area of the Cartesian grid of electrodes (Fig. 3: layer 300 is uniform and overlies each of electrodes 210, 215);
(b) has a fixed, uniform and known compression ratio and hardness score across the entire surface area of the Cartesian grid of electrodes (Paragraph 0029: “The first substrate 300 may comprise a protective material, such as a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover to the second substrate 305;” Examiner notes that such a list of materials comprise materials which read upon the requirements of the claim); and
(c) has a steady-state equilibrium shape such that, when not subject to external forces, its volume remains constant (see previous citation).
Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki does not teach a non-conductive cover material positioned over the outward surface of the homogeneous, compressible, non-ferrite and compressible membrane.
Egorov teaches analogous art in the technology of soft tissue elasticity imaging (Title; Abstract). Egorov further teaches the invention comprising a non-conductive cover material positioned over the outward surface of the homogeneous, compressible, non-ferrite and compressible membrane (Col. 6, lines 48-56: “An optional additional protective elastic cover 23 is used to seal the entire tactile sensor array to prevent it from wear and tear. It also allows dipping the tactile sensor array in various disinfection and sanitization liquids without the risk of damaging the sensor. The elastic cover 23 may be made from polyurethane, PVC, PMMA or any other suitable material. It is preferred to have the cover 23 to be as thin and as flexible as possible to avoid any reduction in the tactile sensor sensitivity”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki to include an additional protective cover (overlying substrate 300 of Otagaki, e.g., in Fig. 3), the motivation being that, although Otagaki already recites that the substrate 300 may form a protective cover, providing a further cover as suggested by Egorov allows for the device to seal an entire sensor array (e.g., each capacitive sensor of Otagaki, as shown in Fig. 1), providing an additional layer of protection and further allowing the sensor to be sanitized without risk of damaging the sensor (see citation of Egorov above).
Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov further teaches the invention wherein at least a portion of the non-conductive cover layer material is accessible through the exposure window of the housing, which serves as the outward facing surface of the sensor and which, together with the membrane, effectively replaces air as a dielectric for the capacitor created by each pair of adjacent electrodes, one functioning as the transmitting electrode and one functioning as the receiving electrode (Examiner notes that replacing the pressure sensing array 12 of Sarvazyan with the sensing structure of Otagaki and further providing an additional cover as suggested by Egorov encompasses such a claim limitation);
wherein the sensor surface is configured to be placed completely and firmly in contact with the surface of the tissue of the subject such that the electromechanical properties including normal surface pressure of the conductive tissue will disrupt the electric field in the dielectric comprised of the compressible membrane and disturb the capacitive coupling between the relevant pairs of coplanar electrodes (Sarvazyan, Paragraph 0036: sensing is tactile; operation of the capacitive sensor array would necessarily perform as required by the claim, see Otagaki, Figs. 3-6);
wherein the sensor input device induces and generates at least one signal in response to the pressure imposed upon the sensor surface by contact with the skin or other soft tissue surface (see previous citation), and
the resulting compression of the compressible membrane and disturbance of the capacitive coupling between the relevant pairs of coplanar electrodes, in accordance with the varying composition and properties of the underlying tissue structure, as an indicator of the location, dynamic and special features of localized areas of stiffer tissue underlying the area of skin or other tissue surface being investigated(see previous citation; Sarvazyan, Fig. 3, Abstract, Paragraphs 0036-0042); and
a controller disposed within the housing comprised of:
(a) one or more commercially available IC capacitive sensor chips configured:
(i) to generate signals used to stimulate the electrode pairs located in the substrate (as best understood, integrated circuits (IC) chips configured to apply signals to capacitive sensors are implicit at Paragraph 0045);
(ii) to receive and process the signals subsequently induced, generated and transmitted by the capacitive tactile sensor input device in response to the pressure imposed upon the sensor surface by contact with the skin or other soft tissue surface (Paragraph 0045: responses from each capacitive sensor received); and
(iii) to induce, generate and transmit to the device signals derived from the processing of the signals induced, generated and transmitted to the IC capacitive sensor chip(s) by the capacitive tactile sensor input device (Paragraph 0045: implicit by programming causing application of AC signal to capacitive sensors which are multiplexed and to obtain offset and gain correction factors); and
(b) one or more integrated circuits and processors configured
(i) to receive and process the signals induced, generated and transmitted by the IC capacitive sensor chip(s) to calculate one or more parameters of the underlying tissue structure, based on changes in the perceived capacitance between the adjacent relevant electron pairs caused by the pressure imposed upon the sensor surface by contact with the skin or other soft tissue surface (as best understood, signals of capacitive sensors (each comprising first and second electrodes) are processed to identify pressure signals to produce pressure patterns in tactile scanning); and
(ii) to communicatively connect with a visualization device comprising a display and an integrated storage device (Paragraph 0043: “The device 30 comprises 2-D tactile sensor array 51 mounted on a touch pad 52 and an electronic unit 56 with a display means 55 optionally secured on a patient's wrist or hand by a strap 54”).
Re. Claim 22: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Otagaki, in the combination, further teaches the invention wherein the homogeneous, compressible, non-ferrite and non-conductive membrane comprises a polyurethane, silicon, or thermoplastic elastomer foam (Paragraph 0029: “… the first substrate 300 may comprise a first material with a first dielectric constant k.sub.1. The first substrate 300 may comprise a protective material, such as a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover to the second substrate 305. The first substrate 300 may comprise a protective material, such as a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover to the second substrate 305;” Examiner notes that such a list of materials comprise materials which read upon the requirements of the claim).
Re. Claim 24: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Otagaki, in the combination, further teaches wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises at least 2 electrodes (Figs.1-3).
Re. Claim 25: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Otagaki, who teaches details regarding the incorporated capacitive sensor array, does not recite a particular dimension for the electrodes; however, Otagaki instead recites that the “particular dimensions and arrangement of the first and second electrodes will influence the capacitance of the capacitive sensor 105” (Paragraph 0035). Therefore, individual electrode surface area appears to be a result-effective variable dependent on the implementation and objective of the measurement apparatus. Applicant fails to provide a teaching of criticality as to the particular range of the surface area of an electrode being between 1 mm2 and 16 mm2. Since Sarvazyan describes that an objective of their invention is to detect tumors of less than about one centimeter in size (Paragraph 0009), and Otagaki’s pressure sensor array requires spacing between adjacent electrodes (Paragraph 0035), the combination of prior arts constrains the surface area of each of the plurality of electrodes to a range of suitable electrode separations and dimensions whereby the skilled artisan would have been able to determine optimized values for electrode surface area and separation, since it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to perform routine experimentation to determine optimal operation parameters.
Re. Claim 26: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Sarvazyan further teaches the invention further comprising a visualization device communicatively connected to the controller, the visualization device comprising a display (Paragraph 0043: “The device 30 comprises 2-D tactile sensor array 51 mounted on a touch pad 52 and an electronic unit 56 with a display means 55 optionally secured on a patient's wrist or hand by a strap 54… The device 30 allows transmission of received breast examination data into a home computer;” Fig. 6: transmission to home computer 66 having a display).
Re. Claim 30: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Sarvazyan further teaches the invention wherein the at least one parameter comprises tissue firmness (Sarvazyan, Abstract: pressure data is used to identify a lesion, i.e., differentiating hardness of surrounding tissues; Otagaki: Figs. 8A, 9A: detection of firm pressure).
Re. Claim 31: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 21. Sarvazyan further teaches the invention wherein the tissue comprises breast tissue (Title; Abstract).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Sarvazyan et al. (US 20040267165 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Sarvazyan) in view of
Otagaki et al. (US 20190196624 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Otagaki) in further view of
Egorov et al. (US 8069735 B1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Egorov) in further view of
Jackson et al. (US 20130190655 A1) (hereinafter – Jackson) in further view of
New Ultra-Soft Medical TPE gels exhibit low surface tack and enhanced adhesion to polypropylene in over-molding (2017) Teknor Apex. Available at: https://www.teknorapex.com/en-us/news/new-ultra-soft-medical-tpe-gels-exhibit-low-surface-tack-and-enhanced-adhesion-to-polypropylene-in-over-molding# (Accessed: 06 March 2026) (hereinafter – Teknor Apex).
Re. Claim 22: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 22. Otagaki contemplates the use of “a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover,” which provides a range of materials which encompasses at least the use of polyurethane as the membrane material in claim 22. However, claim 23 further specifies details of “the foam.” The antecedent basis for “the foam” is “thermoplastic elastomer foam” recited in claim 22, which is another material option for the list of suitable materials for the membrane in claim 22. Thus, none of Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov above teaches the use of a thermoplastic elastomer foam as a layer of material to be used in the tissue assessment device.
Jackson teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring tissue tension (Paragraph 0006). Jackson further teaches that a suitable material for a dressing layer applied to a human body surface is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) foam (Paragraph 0060: particularly, “The material may have any of a variety of configurations, including a solid, foam, lattice, or woven configuration. The elastic material may be a biocompatible polymer, e.g., silicone, polyurethane, TPE (thermoplastic elastomers)…”).
Since Otagaki contemplates “a flexible plastic, resin, polymer, or any other material suitable to provide a protective cover,” for a device applied to the surface of a human body for the purpose of assessing physical parameters of tissue, and Jackson teaches the use of TPE foams as a suitable material for a similar device which is elastically applied to the human body (see citation above), it would have been obvious to have included the use of a TPE foam as taught by Jackson to be used as a protective cover material in the substrate 300, the motivation being that such a material may be formed in thicknesses which provide recoverable strains (Paragraph 0060) suitable for the deformations required by the capacitive sensing structures of the combination.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the foam has a hardness in a range of 00-0 to 00-20,”while Jackson does not disclose a particular shore 00 hardness for TPE foam, Teknor Apex discloses shore hardnesses for TPE gels in the range of 20 Shore OO (Title; Page 1: “Grades are available with hardness levels from an exceedingly low 20 Shore OO to 65 Shore OO, or 10 Shore A”). Examiner notes that forming a foam from such material would yield a lower Shore hardness.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki, Egorov, and Jackson to utilize the TPE material taught by Teknor Apex to form a foam layer therefrom, the motivation being that such a soft TPE are greatly valued in medical applications for their cushioning properties while reducing surface tack (Page 1) while also being suitable for skin contact and being free of DEHP and other phthalates, BPA, and latex (Page 2).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Sarvazyan et al. (US 20040267165 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Sarvazyan) in view of
Otagaki et al. (US 20190196624 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Otagaki) in further view of
Egorov et al. (US 8069735 B1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Egorov) in further view of
Yao et al. (US 20190029592 A1) (hereinafter – Yao).
Re. Claim 27: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 26, but does not teach the invention wherein the controller is connected to the visualization device via a Bluetooth connection.
Yao teaches the invention wherein the controller is connected to the visualization device via a Bluetooth connection (Paragraph 0116: “In some embodiments, signal processing unit 940 includes a communications component (e.g., a wireless communications component, such as a transceiver) that can communicate data and/or camera images to a separate computer or other electronic device. In some embodiments, the communication can be wireless (e.g., Bluetooth)”).
Sarvazyan teaches the use of a wireless protocol to communicate to an external computer having a display, but does not specify that the wireless protocol is Bluetooth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to include the use of Bluetooth as the wireless communication protocol as taught by Yao in the system of Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (the modified Sarvazyan: a device utilizing a wireless protocol; Yao: using Bluetooth as a suitable wireless protocol), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (providing a capacitive tactile sensor having Bluetooth communication protocols for transferring data).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Sarvazyan et al. (US 20040267165 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Sarvazyan) in view of
Otagaki et al. (US 20190196624 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Otagaki) in further view of
Egorov et al. (US 8069735 B1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Egorov) in further view of
Lisogurski et al. (US 20150157269 A1) (hereinafter – Lisogurski).
Re. Claims 28 and 29: Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov teaches the invention according to claim 26, but does not teach the invention
further comprising conducting elements on the exterior of the housing configured to deliver a voltage reference used for all subsequent capacitive calculations (as required by claim 28); or
including a grounding pad or strap providing conductive contact between an uninsulated portion of the electron plane (as required by claim 29).
Lisogurski teaches the invention further comprising conducting elements on the exterior of the housing configured to deliver a voltage reference used for all subsequent capacitive calculations (Paragraph 0050: “The tissue interface portions can include clamp-on probes, adhesive pads, conductive foams, or conducting gels which interface electrically to tissue of the patient. The electrical grounding or reference potential connection can be employed to enhance signal measurement of the single-plate capacitor. Some measurements of the capacitance signal can be affected by unwanted influence from the environment around tissue 140, such as nearby objects, nearby people, things the patient is presently touching or contacting, among other influences”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the tissue interface portions of Sarvazyan as modified by Otagaki and Egorov to include a conductive electrical grounding or interface voltage reference as taught by Lisogurski (thus encompassing the requirements of both claims 28 and 29), the motivation being that doing so enhances signal measurement by reducing unwanted influence from the environment around the tissue, nearby objects, or things the patient is presently touching, among other influences (Paragraph 0050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791