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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sensor housing means” in claims 21-26 and 29-34
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the “sensor housing means” is interpreted as the housing 66 described in paragraph [0153] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenland et al., (US 20080071178; hereinafter Greenland).
Regarding claim 21, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) discloses a sensor-retention structure comprising: a metal tissue-anchoring structure (400, 402), ([0046]); a sensor-support arm (368) projecting from the tissue-anchoring structure (400, 402), ([0046]); and a thermoplastic tubular sensor housing means (379) attached to the sensor-support arm (368), ([0046]-[0048], [0136]: shape memory polymer) and configured to hold an elongate cylindrical sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A) and secure the sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A) to the sensor-support arm (379), ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 23, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) comprises a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or polyaryletherketone (PAEK) cylinder ([0046]-[0048], [0136]: shape memory polymer).
Regarding claim 24, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) comprises a polymer film (shape memory polymer) disposed around at least a portion of the sensor device (50) and the sensor-support strut (379), ([0046]-[0048], [0136]).
Regarding claim 25, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) comprises a sensor mold configured to have the sensor device (50) inserted therein ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 26, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) includes a proximal attachment feature (proximal opening) that includes one or more prong-insertion openings ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 27, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the proximal attachment feature provides an aperture (opening) dimensioned to allow for insertion of one or more prongs (body) associated with the sensor-support arm (368) therein to secure the proximal attachment feature (opening) to the sensor- support arm (368) ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 28, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the proximal attachment feature (opening) comprises a lateral curved channel and a vertical channel that intersects with a center of the lateral curved channel ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 29, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the proximal attachment feature (opening) comprises a sleeve (proximal portion of the body which forms the opening) that wraps around at least part of the sensor housing means (379) and the sensor-support arm (368), ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 31, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) a plurality of distal longitudinal slots (formed by portions 380/382) configured to permit radial flaring of distal flaps of the sensor housing means (379), ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 32, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) further discloses wherein the sensor housing means (379) comprises a sleeve (body) that spans only a subsegment of a length of the elongate cylindrical sensor device (50), ([0046]-[0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 12, 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara et al., (US 20120265296; hereinafter McNamara) in view of Greenland.
Regarding claim 1, McNamara (Figures 24-25 and 63) discloses a sensor-retention structure (400 in Figure 63) comprising: a shunt (500 in Figures 24-25) configured to redirect blood flow from a first region of a cardiovascular system to second region of the cardiovascular system ([0014], [0172]); and an external sensor structure (422) attached to the shunt ([0304]-[0309]). McNamara fails to disclose that the external sensor structure comprises a sensor-support arm extending from the shunt and configured to have an at least partially cylindrical sensor device coupled thereto; and a sensor-retention tube attached to the sensor-support arm, the sensor-retention tube being disposed around a cylindrical body portion of the sensor device. However, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) teaches a sensor-retention structure (354) with an external sensor structure comprising a sensor-support arm (368) extending from a flow control device (400, 402) and configured to have an at least partially cylindrical sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A) coupled thereto; and a sensor-retention tube (379) attached to the sensor-support arm (368), the sensor-retention tube (379) being disposed around a cylindrical body portion of the sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A), ([0046]-[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic external sensor structure disclosed by McNamara with the specific external sensor structure taught by Greenland, since both external sensor structures perform the same function of providing a parameter indicative of blood pressure or flow, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 9, McNamara/Greenland further teaches a distal stopper (distal end) associated with a distal end portion of the sensor-support arm (379), ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 10, McNamara/Greenland further teaches the sensor-retention tube (379) being a thermoplastic polymer ([0040]) encasement form (379) configured to be disposed at least partially over the sensor device (50) when the sensor device (50) is disposed on the sensor-support arm (379), ([0046]-[0048], [0136]).
Regarding claim 12, McNamara/Greenland further teaches wherein the sensor-retention tube comprises a wrap comprising at least one of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), or polyurethane (PU) ([0046]-[0048], [0136]: shape memory polymer).
Regarding claim 14, McNamara (Figures 24-25 and 63) discloses a sensor-retention structure (400 in Figure 63) comprising: a shunt barrel (500 in Figures 24-25) defining a flow channel dimensioned for directing blood flow from a first cardiac cavity to second cardiac cavity through a tissue wall ([0014], [0172]); and an external sensor structure (422) attached to the shunt ([0304]-[0309]). McNamara fails to disclose that the external sensor structure comprises a sensor-support arm extending transversely from an end of the shunt barrel, the sensor-support arm being configured to have secured thereto an elongate cylindrical sensor device; and a tubular sensor housing attached to the sensor- support arm, wherein the sensor housing is configured to cover a circumferential surface of the sensor device along a length of the sensor device. However, Greenland (Figures 6A-6D) teaches a sensor-retention structure (354) with an external sensor structure comprising a sensor-support arm (368) extending transversely from an end of a flow control device (400, 402), the sensor-support arm (368) being configured to have secured thereto an elongate cylindrical sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A); and a tubular sensor housing (379) attached to the sensor-support arm (368), wherein the sensor housing (379) is configured to cover a circumferential surface of the sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A) along a length of the sensor device (i.e. 50 in Figure 2A), ([0046]-[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic external sensor structure disclosed by McNamara with the specific external sensor structure taught by Greenland, since both external sensor structures perform the same function of providing a parameter indicative of blood pressure or flow, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, McNamara/Greenland further teaches wherein the sensor-support arm is configured to be bent away from the shunt barrel to thereby project at least partially radially away from an axis of the shunt barrel to anchor the shunt barrel to the tissue wall. Specifically, the modified device includes the sensor-support arm (368) taught by Greenland, which includes portion (379). Therefore, that portion (379) would be configured to be bent away from the shunt barrel to thereby project at least partially radially away from an axis of the shunt barrel to anchor the shunt barrel to the tissue wall.
Regarding claim 17, McNamara/Greenland further teaches wherein the sensor housing (379) comprises a proximal cap (proximal end of housing body) that includes one or more locking through-channels (proximal opening) adapted for insertion of one or more locking prongs (two distal ends of portions 380 and 382 of sensor-support arm 368) that project from the sensor-support arm (368), ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 18, McNamara/Greenland further teaches wherein the one or more locking through-channels (two distal ends of portions 380 and 382 of sensor-support arm 368) comprises a plurality of lateral channels that join at a vertical channel ([0046]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 19, McNamara/Greenland further teaches wherein the sensor housing (379) includes one or more cut-outs (opening through which sensor is inserted and held) in a curved cylindrical body portion thereof ([0046]-[0048]).
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 11, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara/Greenland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silver et al., (US 20030114735; hereinafter Silver).
Regarding claim 2, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach wherein the sensor-support arm includes one or more sensor-retention fingers are configured to run along an outside surface of the sensor device. However, Silver (Figure 6C) teaches a sensor-retention structure, wherein the one or more sensor-retention fingers (74) are configured to be wrapped at least partially around a sensor device (sensor) disposed on the sensor-support arm (76), ([0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include one or more sensor-retention fingers, as taught by Silver, because the modification would provide a more secure means to capture the sensor on the sensor-retention device ([0136]).
Regarding claim 5, Silver (Figure 6C) further teaches wherein the one or more sensor-retention fingers (74) are positioned in one or sets of aligned opposing fingers (74), ([0136]).
Regarding claim 6, Silver (Figure 6C) further teaches wherein the one or more sensor-retention fingers (74) project distally from the sensor-support arm (76), ([0136]).
Regarding claim 7, Silver (Figure 6C) further teaches wherein the one or more sensor-retention fingers (74) include respective distal cross pieces crossing between the support arm (76), ([0136]).
Regarding claim 8, Silver (Figure 6C) further teaches wherein at least two of the one or more sensor-retention fingers (76) are configured to be locked together at distal ends thereof by means of the encasing element (78), ([0136]).
Regarding claim 11, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach that the encasement form includes one or more cutouts shaped to fit at least one sensor-retention finger that transversely projects from the sensor-support arm. However, Silver (Figure 6C) teaches wherein the encasement form (76) includes one or more cutouts (section between the proximal and distal ends of element 78 housing the fingers 74) shaped to fit at least one sensor-retention finger (74) that transversely projects from the sensor-support arm ([0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include one or more cutouts, as taught by Silver, because the modification would provide a more secure means to capture the sensor on the sensor-retention device ([0136]).
Regarding claim 13, Silver (Figure 6C) further teaches wherein the one or more sensor- retention fingers (74) project distally from the sensor-support arm, curves upward and laterally toward aside-center region of the sensor device, and then continues distally along the side-center region of the sensor device in a substantially straight path ([0136]).
Regarding claim 20, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach a plurality of fingers that extend laterally from the sensor-support arm and curve around portions of an outer surface of the cylindrical sensor device, wherein the plurality of fingers fit within respective ones of the one or more cut-outs in the sensor housing. However, Silver (Figure 6C) teaches a sensor-retention structure, wherein one or more sensor-retention fingers (74) that extend laterally from the sensor-support arm and curve around portions of an outer surface of the cylindrical sensor device (sensor) on a support arm (76), ([0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include one or more sensor-retention fingers, as taught by Silver, because the modification would provide a more secure means to capture the sensor on the sensor-retention device ([0136]). Furthermore, since the fingers would be incorporated into the base McNamara/Greenland device, the modified device would include the plurality of fingers fitting within respective ones of the one or more cut-outs in the sensor housing.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Silver.
Regarding claim 34, Greenland fails to disclose wherein the sensor-support arm comprises a locking retention arm including a plurality of prongs, and the sensor housing means includes a sensor housing including a plurality of channels associated with a proximal end thereof and configured to receive one or more of the plurality of prongs. However, Silver (Figure 6C) further discloses wherein the means (72) for securing the sensor device (sensor) to the sensor support strut (76) comprises a locking retention arm including a plurality of prongs (74), and a sensor housing (78) including a plurality of channels (portions of element 78 between proximal finger 74 and other fingers 74) associated with a proximal end thereof and configured to receive one or more of the plurality of prongs (74) and a distal end portion of the sensor-support strut (76), ([0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include one or more sensor-retention fingers, as taught by Silver, because the modification would provide a more secure means to capture the sensor on the sensor-retention device ([0136]). Furthermore, since the fingers would be incorporated into the base McNamara/Greenland device, the modified device would include the sensor housing means comprising a sensor housing including a plurality of channels associated with a proximal end thereof and configured to receive one or more of the plurality of prongs.
Claim(s) 3-4, 16, 22, 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara/Greenland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilbert et al., (US 20200022727; hereinafter Gilbert).
Regarding claim 3, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach reinforcement wiring is wrapped around at least a portion of the sensor device and the one or more sensor-retention fingers to further secure the sensor device to the sensor-support arm. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including one or more sensor-retention fingers (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprises a reinforcement wiring strap form and at least one of the one or more sensor- retention fingers comprises a buckle form that extends from an opposing side of the sensor- support arm such that the strap form can be inserted through a portion of the buckle form ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include a reinforcement wiring strap form, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 4, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach reinforcement wiring is wrapped around at least a portion of the sensor-retention tube to further secure the sensor device to the sensor-support arm. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including one or more sensor-retention fingers (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprises a reinforcement wiring strap form and at least one of the one or more sensor- retention fingers comprises a buckle form that extends from an opposing side of the sensor- support arm such that the strap form can be inserted through a portion of the buckle form ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include a reinforcement wiring strap form, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 16, McNamara/Greenland fails to teach wherein the sensor housing has reinforcement wiring wrapped around an outer surface thereof to secure the sensor housing and the sensor device to the sensor-support arm. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including one or more sensor-retention fingers (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprises a reinforcement wiring strap form and at least one of the one or more sensor- retention fingers comprises a buckle form that extends from an opposing side of the sensor- support arm such that the strap form can be inserted through a portion of the buckle form ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamara/Greenland to include a reinforcement wiring strap form, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 22, Silver discloses the sensor-retention structure of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the means for securing the sensor device to the sensor support strut comprises one or more strap features associated with the sensor-support strut. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including securing means (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprising one or more strap features ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silver to include one or more strap features in the means for securing the sensor device to the sensor support strut, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Claim(s) 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gilbert.
Regarding claim 30, Greenland fails to disclose wherein the sensor housing means comprises a proximal mating clip configured snap to a housing-attachment flange associated with the sensor- support arm. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including securing means (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprising one or more strap features ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silver to include one or more strap features in the means for securing the sensor device to the sensor support strut, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 33, Greenland fails to disclose wherein the sensor housing means has reinforcement wiring wrapped over or adjacent to at least a portion thereof. However, Gilbert (Figure 2) teaches a retention clamp (200) including securing means (ends housing couplers 202a and 202b, respectively) comprising one or more strap features ([0048]-[0052]: the opposing fingers/ends of clamp 200 comprise couplers 202a/b which may be configured as snap-fit mechanisms, ratcheting (i.e. zip-tie) mechanisms, hooking mechanisms, or buttoning mechanisms; therefore, one finger/end may include a coupler comprising a strap form and another finger/end may include a coupler comprising a buckle form). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silver to include one or more strap features in the means for securing the sensor device to the sensor support strut, as taught by Gilbert, because the modification would interlock the ends/fingers together to secure the ends/fingers around the structure they hold (Gilbert; [0048]-[0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/12/2025, with regard to the newly filed claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is/are made in view of newly found prior art references McNamara and Greenland. McNamara discloses a sensor-retention structure comprising a shunt with an external sensor structure attached to it and Greenland discloses a specific external sensor structure as required by the amended claims. Therefore, Greenland discloses the invention as claimed at least in amended independent claim 21 and the McNamara/Greenland combination teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended independent claims 1 and 14.
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 CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794