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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the objection to Applicant’s Abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Applicant’s Abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) have been fully considered and are persuasive as the rejection is now moot. The rejection of claims 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
Applicant contends that Redford does not and cannot teach or suggest, among other things, “wherein, if the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes are extended at least partially away from the main body, each of the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes are retractable into the main body in response to being tugged in a direction away from the main body,” as presently recited in independent claim 1. Applicant further contends that Redford is absolutely silent as to the actual process and/or mechanism that allows the plurality of leads 14 to be retracted by the retractable reel, where Redford merely mentions that there is a “ratcheting mechanism that stops the rotation of the reel,” and a “condensed spring coil that applies a torsional force to retract the lead 14 back into the casing,” such that Redford does give ANY clear indication regarding how the retraction is performed, and one cannot simply assume that the retraction is performed in Redford by a tugging of the plurality of leads 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation but that a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification, and where such meaning must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 84 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Here, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied to the pending claim as Applicant has claimed retraction in response to a tugging motion. Redford teaches this limitation since Redford teaches retraction by a condensed spring coil (¶[0020], where “The main mechanical function of the retractable reel may be performed by a ratcheting mechanism that stops the rotation of the reel and by a condensed spring coil that applies a torsional force to retract the lead 14 back into the casing for the reel”). A condensed spring coil with a ratcheting mechanism is capable of retraction in response to a tugging motion (See, for example, Spring Reels. Conductix. (n.d.). https://www.conductix.us/en/us/energy-transmission/spring-reels#:~:text=Conductix%2DWampfler%20spring%20reels%20range,from%20our%20experts%20if%20required., where “Extension spring reels are equipped with a ratchet so that the user can pull out the cable or hose length he needs and freely use it. After use, a pull on the cable releases the ratchet and the spring rewinds the cable”), such that the limitation as claimed is taught by Redford.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/11/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 3 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Redford (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0401374 A1) in view of Avevor (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286861 A1) and Wolfer (U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,979) as set forth in the last Office action because: There is no evidence of a long-felt need. The affidavit states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. Furthermore, the affidavit seems to rely on opinion evidence without any supporting material to prove Applicant’s position.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redford (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0401374 A1) in view of Avevor (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286861 A1) and Wolfer (U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,979).
Regarding claim 1, Redford teaches a retractable electrocardiogram device (Abstract, ¶[0007], where “Exemplary embodiments disclosed herein describe an electrocardiogram (EKG) lead attachment with a visual aid device including a plurality of retractable leads”), comprising:
a main body (Abstract, ¶[0007], where “Exemplary embodiments disclosed herein describe an electrocardiogram (EKG) lead attachment with a visual aid device including … a housing member,” Figure 1, housing member 12);
a plurality of chest electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body and configured to removably connect to at least a portion of a chest of a user (¶[0020], where “Each retractable reel has one of the plurality of leads 14 spooled thereon. The spooled lead may be extended from the reel and the extended lead may be retracted to the reel. The retractable reel may include a spool for storing the reeled lead,” ¶[0023], where “The plurality of leads include a first set of leads which are configured for attachment to a chest cavity region of a human body”);
a plurality of arm electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body and configured to removably connect to at least a portion of arms of the user (¶[0020], ¶[0023], where “The plurality of leads include … a second set of leads which are configured for attachment to a non-chest cavity region of a human body, such as, for example, an arm”);
a plurality of leg electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body and configured to removably connect to at least a portion of legs of the user (¶[0020], ¶[0023], where “The plurality of leads include … a second set of leads which are configured for attachment to a non-chest cavity region of a human body, such as, for example, … a leg”),
where the plurality of chest electrodes, arm electrodes, and leg electrodes move from retracted within the main body to at least partially extracted out of the main body in the first position, and move from extracted out of the main body to retracted within the main body in the second position (¶[0020], where “Each retractable reel has one of the plurality of leads 14 spooled thereon. The spooled lead may be extended from the reel and the extended lead may be retracted to the reel. The retractable reel may include a spool for storing the reeled lead”),
wherein, if the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes are extended at least partially away from the main body, each of the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes are retractable into the main body in response to being tugged in a direction away from the main body (¶[0020], where “spooled lead may be extended from the reel and the extended lead may be retracted to the reel … The main mechanical function of the retractable reel may be performed by a ratcheting mechanism that stops the rotation of the reel and by a condensed spring coil that applies a torsional force to retract the lead 14 back into the casing for the reel”).
Although Redford teaches a plurality of chest, arm, and leg electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body, Redford does not specify the location of each set of leads respective to the main body. Furthermore, Redford does not teach a single retracting button disposed on at least a portion of the main body to move the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes from extracted out of the main body to retracted within the main body in response to being depressed.
Wolfer teaches a portable EKG machine having a plurality of individually storable electrode leads, each of which may be selectively moved from a retracted position wherein the electrode lead is stored within a storage enclosure, to an extended position wherein the electrode lead is drawn from the storage enclosure (Abstract) with a plurality of chest electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at a first end of the main body (Figure 2, electrodes 12 and leads 14, Col. 4, lines 65-67, where “the remaining electrodes and leads are attached to the patient's torso (referenced as 12 and 14)”), a plurality of arm electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at the first end of the main body (Figure 2, electrodes 12a and leads 14a, Col. 4, lines 62-63, where “certain electrodes and leads are attached to the patient's arms (referenced as 12a and 14a)”), and a plurality of leg electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at a second end of the main body opposite from the first end of the main body (Figure 2, electrodes 121 and leads 141, Col. 4, lines 63-65, where “other electrodes and leads are attached to the patient's legs (referenced as 121 and 141),” Col. 6, lines 14-17, where “leads 14 and 14a extend out one side of enclosure 16, while leads 141 extend out of the opposite side of enclosure 16 such that there is no need to have any lead double back across the enclosure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Wolfer, which teaches a plurality of chest electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at a first end of the main body, a plurality of arm electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at the first end of the main body, and a plurality of leg electrodes movably disposed within at least a portion of the main body at a second end of the main body opposite from the first end of the main body, with the invention of Redford in order to detect heart activity by adhesively securing a plurality of electrodes to the patient's skin thereby placing the electrodes in electrical communication with the patient's heart (Wolfer Col. 4, lines 58-61) and to prevent any lead double back across the enclosure (Wolfer Col. 6, lines 16-17).
Although Redford as modified teaches a retractable ECG device with a plurality of chest, arm, and leg electrodes, neither Redford nor Wolfer teach a single retracting button disposed on at least a portion of the main body to move the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes from extracted out of the main body to retracted within the main body in response to being depressed.
Avevor teaches an ECG cable management system (See Title) with a single retracting button disposed on at least a portion of the main body (Figure 2, control button 107, ¶[0042], where “Control buttons 107 are also provided on each drive module 105 to allow an operator to control extension and retraction of lead wires 201,” ¶[0050], where “A mechanism is provided to retract a lead wire 201 by winding it onto a spool and extend a lead wire 201 by unwinding it from the spool … a single drive mechanism can be configured to retract all leads at the same instance and rate.” Examiner takes the position that a single drive mechanism is equivalent to a single retracting button. Avevor teaches a control button to retract the lead wires and further teaches that the retraction mechanism, here the control button, can be a single drive mechanism to retract all leads. Since the control button can be a single drive mechanism, this means that there is a single control button to retract all leads.) to move the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes from extracted out of the main body to retracted within the main body in response to being depressed (¶[0042], where “Control buttons 107 are also provided on each drive module 105 to allow an operator to control extension and retraction of lead wires 201”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Avevor, which teaches a single retracting button disposed on at least a portion of the main body to move the plurality of chest electrodes, the plurality of arm electrodes, and the plurality of leg electrodes from extracted out of the main body to retracted within the main body in response to being depressed, with the modified invention of Redford in order to retract all leads at the same instance and rate (Avevor ¶[0050]) and since utilizing only one retraction button instead of individual retraction buttons to retract each individual electrode increases efficiency by decreasing the time required to retract a plurality of electrodes.
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 SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792