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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the provisional application filed 02/11/2021.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the applicant amendments made to the claim 1 with claims 7, 8, 18 and 20 canceled in prosecution. Currently claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 are pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazar (US Patent No 2016/0228060) in view of Schimmoeller (US Patent No 20160345875) further in view of Toth (US Patent No 2015/0351690).
Regarding claim 1, Mazar teaches a patient-monitoring device comprising (patient worn sensor 102, [0026]): a housing (housing 110, [0036]) including a first opening; a printed circuit board including a major surface (from Mazar, housing 110 includes a circuit board 134, [0055], wherein the top side containing the sensors is analyzed as the major surface); a first connector (see the Mazar annotated figure 4 below for the equivalent first connector piece); a snap located in the first opening to connect to an electrode through the first opening (see fig 2A for any of the openings in the housing 110 for the electrical contact snaps 116, [0036]) and a battery pack that is attached to and detached from the housing (from Mazar, the power supply can take the form of a removable battery pack, [0033], therefore teaching attachable and detachable), wherein the battery pack includes a battery to power the patient-monitoring device (from Mazar, wherein the battery pack contains a battery, [0033]); and the first connector aligns and restricts a direction in which the battery pack is attached to and detached from the housing (from Mazar, see the annotated figure 4 below showing the exploded view of the housing without the battery pack and depicting the equivalent first connector. Wherein the connector piece aligns the battery pack direction when attaching, [0054]).
Although a first connector for the battery pack is not explicitly called out by Mazar, it would be inferred by one skilled in the art from the figure 4 that the connector piece as pointed out in the annotated figure 4 below would be used to contain a battery pack connection in order to maintain power and attach the battery pack.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mazar Annotated Figure 4.
Mazar does not explicitly teach that the battery pack is attached to a direction along the major surface of the printed circuit board.
However, the analogous printed circuit board sensing device taught by Schimmoeller does teach that the battery pack is attached to a direction along the major surface of the printed circuit board (see from Schimmoeller, [0056], in which the battery housing 124 may be configured to be received within the electrically conductive layers, or the major surface, within the PCB 120, see also fig 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the patient monitoring device taught by Mazar, with that of the specific battery pack orientation taught by Schimmoeller, as it is a simple design choice and it is a known battery housing structure in the art for aligning the battery pack in a slim configuration, as taught by Schimmoeller, [0056].
Furthermore, Mazar nor Schimmoeller teach a retaining wall that extends around a perimeter of the printed circuit board and wherein a dielectric potting compound within the retaining wall and covering the snap and the printed circuit board.
However, the analogous physiological monitoring system of Toth does teach a retaining wall that extends around a perimeter of the printed circuit board (from Toth, a module in accordance with the present disclosure may include a circuit configured and dimensioned so as to form a wall of the housing, [0235], and wherein the module wall may be encapsulated in the potting compound, [0238]) and a dielectric potting compound within the retaining wall covering the snap (in which a dielectric layer 1015 is placed over the conducting trace 1010, equivalent to the snap in this case, in order to isolate the conductive regions, [0345]) and the printed circuit board (see Toth, in which the circuitry may be imbedded into the substrate, [0032], in which the substrate is made of a dielectric material as shown in [0345], and therefore the circuit board is covered by the dielectric material).
Furthermore, Toth also continues to teach that the module housing may be filled with a low dielectric potting material. In which the housing 260 contains the circuitry 280 and the conducting traces 1010 and therefore also teaches a dielectric potting material which covers the snap and the printed circuit board, [0245] and [0320].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the patient monitor device taught by Mazar and Schimmoeller to have a retaining wall with a dielectric compound within the retaining wall covering the snap and PCB as disclosed by Toth in order to effectively isolate and insulate the conductive regions of the snap and printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising a flat surface surrounding the first opening (see Mazar fig 4, for the stabilizing boots 126a found around the first opening which creates a flat surface, [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 2, further comprising a protrusion that defines the flat surface (see Mazar fig 4, for the apertures 136 which protrude and define the opening and create the base for the flat surfaces 126a, [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the housing further includes a plurality of ribs spaced around the first opening (see Mazar fig 4, for the grooves 142 which surround the stabilizing flat surface 126a and the first opening, [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising a second opening, wherein the first opening and the second opening are aligned to be vertical or substantially vertical when the patient-monitoring device is mounted to a patient (see Mazar fig 3B, in which the housing 110 has openings for the electrical contacts 116a and 116c which are analyzed as the first and second openings aligned in a vertical formation according to the figure, [0043]) .
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising: a first cavity that defines the first opening; and a second cavity that defines the second opening (see Mazar fig 4, which shows the relative grooves 142 which define a cavity opening for the first opening 116a and second opening 116b. In this case the grooves 142 define both the first and second cavity).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the housing includes a first lock, and the battery pack includes a second lock that communicates with the first lock to lock the battery pack to the housing (from Toth, the power source and the housing may have one or more interconnects each in order to configure the power source module onto the housing of the device, [0225], therefore the interconnects act in the same way the locks would of the present application).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising an antenna (see Toth, antenna 287, [0320]) within a portion of the housing (from Toth, antenna may be printed on or embedded into a portion of the housing, [0023]) that is not overlapped, in plain view, with the battery pack when the battery pack is attached to the housing (see Toth, fig 2C in which the antenna 287 is not overlapped with the power source or battery unit 275).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 10, wherein the dielectric potting compound does not cover the antenna.
Although Toth does not explicitly state to not cover the antenna by the dielectric compound, Toth does state that only certain elements within the sensor module may be covered in the potting material as needed, [0238]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to not place the potting compound on the antenna as to still allow the antenna to send and receive electrical signals in accordance with the intended function of the antenna.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the housing further includes an antenna (from Toth, antenna may be printed on or embedded into the housing, [0023]), and the dielectric potting compound does not cover the antenna.
Although Toth does not explicitly state to not cover the antenna by the dielectric compound, Toth does state that only certain elements within the sensor module may be covered in the potting material as needed, [0238]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to not place the potting compound on the antenna as to still allow the antenna to send and receive electrical signals in accordance with the intended function of the antenna.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board includes holes (see Mazar fig 4, for the holes used for fastening on circuit board 134, [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, further comprising a secondary printed circuit board that is in the housing (see Toth, which discloses using one or more circuit boards within the housing, [0227], which can be advantageous for a variety of different reasons listed in [0225]), wherein the dielectric potting compound does not cover the secondary printed circuit board.
Although Toth does not explicitly state a secondary printed circuit board which is not covered by the dielectric compound, Toth does state that only certain elements within the sensor module may be covered in the potting material as needed, [0238]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to not place the potting compound on the secondary printed circuit board as it would not be needed within this application.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the housing is transparent (from Toth, the corresponding patch may be configured with a transparent window on the housing, [0165]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the housing includes openings that include an identical shape and that each receive a cable or plug (see Mazar fig 3B which shows all the identical electrode openings of 116a-116e which are all configured to receive the snap plug end of an electrode, [0043]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazar (US Patent No 2016/0228060) in view of Schimmoeller (US Patent No 20160345875) further in view of Toth (US Patent No 2015/0351690) further in view of Yang (US Patent No 2013/0066168).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination teaches the patient-monitoring device of claim 1.
The previous combination does not explicitly state wherein a relative permittivity of the dielectric potting compound is less than 4.
However, Toth does state that the module should be in use with a relatively low permittivity potting material, [0249], and the analogous physiological signal sensor of Yang discloses using various materials to obtain a relative permittivity of less than 4 such as for example silica with a relative permittivity of 3.9, [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to combine the patient monitoring device disclosed by the previous combination with the relative permittivity teachings of Yang in order to get an efficient circuit system that prevents signal interference between components as disclosed by Yang, [0067].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, regarding the argument that the previous prior art of record rejection does not teach the new amended claim limitation that “the battery pack is attached to a direction along the major surface of the printed circuit board,” has been considered but is ultimately found moot. After further search and consideration, necessitated by amended claim limitation, it has been found that new prior art of record of Schimmoeller teaches the amended claim language that the battery pack is attached to a direction along the major surface of the printed circuit board (see from Schimmoeller, [0056], in which the battery housing 124 may be configured to be received within the electrically conductive layers, or the major surface, within the PCB 120, see also fig 10). Therefore, as the new prior art of record of Schimmoeller does teach the amended limitation of claim 1, the independent claim 1 and all dependents remain rejected under the new prior art of record rejection of Mazar in view of Schimmoeller further in view of Toth set forth in the present office action.
As no further arguments or amendments were presented regarding any other claims, they remain rejected under the prior art of record rejection as they remain dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Conclusion
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 KYLE M BROWN whose telephone number is (703)756-4534. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00pm EST, Mon-Fri, alternating Fridays off.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/KYLE M. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/LINDA C DVORAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794