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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 - 8, 10 - 12, and 14 - 21 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection in the claims. As such, the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Independent claim 1 is directed towards an intraoral measurement device comprising a biological sensor and a plurality of contact detection unit sensors such as the embodiments shown in FIGs. 19 - 22 and described in paragraphs [0255] - [0286] of the Applicant’s specification. Additionally, dependent claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 are directed towards arrangements of the plurality of contact detection unit sensors.
In contrast, independent claim 21 is directed towards an intraoral measurement device comprising a biological sensor and at least one contact detection unit sensor. While claim 21 indicates that potentially more than one contact detection unit sensors can be incorporated onto the contact sensor, the claim limitation “wherein the light guide surrounds a periphery of the detection surface of the biological sensor” implies that there is a single contact detection unit sensor with a light guide that bounds the periphery of the biological sensor. This analysis is additionally supported by FIG. 24, which represents the ninth embodiment or species of the invention as described in paragraphs [0300] - [0304]) of the Applicant’s specification, which describes that the ninth embodiment differs in that “a contact detection unit 12N surround the periphery of the detection surface 11A of the biological sensor 11” (paragraph [0302]) and additionally that the light guide unit 14 “convers the outer periphery of the detection surface” (paragraph [0303]). As such, the invention of claim 21 is directed to a distinct species from that presented in claim 1 as each species as claimed requires a mutually exclusive limitation and the species as claimed are not obvious variants of each other.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1 - 8, 10 - 12, & 14 - 20 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.
In regard to claim 1, lines 5 - 11 recite, “a plurality of contact detection unit sensors that are on the biological sensors or at a periphery of the biological sensor… the plurality of contact detection unit sensors comprising:
at least one optical sensor configured to receive light; and
at least one light guide on the contact surface and configured to guide the received light to the at least one optical sensor…”
As written, claim 1 states that a plurality of contact detection unit sensors can comprise a single optical sensor and light guide. However, it is unclear how a plurality of contact detection unit sensors could comprise only one optical sensor and light guide. Claim 1 should be amended from “the plurality of contact detection unit sensors comprising:” to -- the plurality of contact detection unit sensors each comprising: --. Examiner notes that they are interpreting the claim to require 2 or more contact detection unit sensors, each of which comprises at least one optical sensor and one light guide. Claims 2 - 8, 10 - 12, & 14 - 20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, & 13 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (WO 2013136659 A1 - Previously Cited) in view of Isaacson (US5490523A - Previously Cited).
In regard to claim 1, Morita discloses a device having a contact surface configured to contact a measurement site in an oral cavity, the device comprising:
a biological sensor that is on the contact surface, and that has a detection surface configured to acquire biological information; Furukawa discloses a biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200) on a contact surface (FIG. 2, component 123).
and a plurality of contact detection unit sensors that are on the biological sensor or at a periphery of the biological sensor, and that is configured to acquire contact information indicating a degree of contact between the measurement site and the contact surface. Morita discloses multiple contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) on the periphery of the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200). The contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) are arranged at diagonal positions of the biological sensor (FIG.2, component) 200, and each have an electrode for detecting a contact state with the body surface of the subject (Page 3, paragraph [0027]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the biological sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to detect a capacitance. Morita discloses a biological sensor (See annotated FIG. 2 above; component 200, which is connected to a measurement circuit (FIG. 3, component 321) that measures capacitance (Page 3, paragraph [0033]).
While Morita discloses the use of multiple contact sensors in addition to the biological sensor configured to determine a degree of contact between the measurement site and contact surface and the importance of using contact sensors in order to determine if the biological sensor is in even contact with the body surface in order to improve the accuracy of the measurement of the biological signal by the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200; Page 5, paragraph [0052]), they do not disclose that the plurality of contact detection unit sensors comprise:
at least one optical sensor configured to receive light;
and at least one light guide on the contact surface and configured to guide the received light to the optical sensors.
However, Isaacson teaches an optical sensor configured to receive light (Isaacson, FIG. 10; Column 4, lines 32 - 44) and determine if sufficient contact between the device and the body surface before performing further measurements of biological parameters (Isaacson, FIG. 18; Colum 5, lines 31 - 56). Additionally, the optical sensor (FIG. 10) taught by Isaacson is in reference to cited patent Sakai (US5224478A), which includes a light guide (Sakai, FIG. 1, component 14) on the contact surface configured to guide the received light to the optical sensors (Sakai, FIG. 1, component 18; Column 3, lines 26 - 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device disclosed by Morita with the optical contact sensor taught by Isaacson because it would be considered a simple substitution of one known element for another, in this case the capacitance contact sensor for the optical contact sensor, to obtain the predictable result of determining if a device is in contact with a body surface during measurement of a biological parameter with a biological sensor.
Examiner additionally notes that the preamble of the claim includes, “an intraoral measurement device having a contact surface configured to contact a measurement site in an oral cavity…” However, as these details are included in the preamble of the claim and not the body of the claim, the limitations do not hold patentable weight and were not considered in the scope of the claim rejection.
In regard to claim 6, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising:
the detection surface of the biological sensor has a polygonal shape; Morita discloses a biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200) where the biological sensor is in the shape of a square.
the plurality of contact detection unit sensors are arranged at corners of the detection surface. Morita discloses two contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) which are arranged at the corners of the detection surface (See annotated FIG. 2 above).
In regard to claim 8, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising a plurality of contact detection unit sensors, wherein the plurality of contact detection unit sensors surround a periphery of the detection surface of the biological sensor. Morita additionally discloses that while FIG. 2 shows that the device includes 2 contact detection unit sensors, the measuring device can instead include four contact detection unit sensors arranged at positions facing each other at equal intervals on the outer periphery of the biological sensor (Page 4, paragraph [0028]).). One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the definition of surround is to extend around the margin or the edge of an object. Having one contact detection unit sensor on each side of the biological sensor reasonably meets the claim limitations of claim 8.
In regard to claim 10, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, wherein each of the optical sensors comprises: a light emitter configured to emit light; and a light receiver configured to receive light reflected by the measurement site. The optical sensor (FIG. 10) taught by Isaacson is in reference to cited patent Sakai (US5224478A), which includes a light emitter (Sakai, FIG. 1, components 22 & 24) and a light receiver configured to receive light reflected by the measurement site (Sakai, FIG. 1, component 18).
In regard to claim 14, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising a processor configured to output trigger information that starts a determination of an amount of a measurement object based on outputs of the biological sensor and the plurality of contact detection unit sensors. Morita specifically discloses that the control unit (component 301) uses the inputs from the contact detection unit sensors to determine that the contact surface of the measurement device is in full contact with the body surface (FIG. 5, component 501; Page 4, paragraph [0032]) before starting a measurement of moisture levels using the biological sensor (Page 4, paragraph [0032]).
In regard to claim 15, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to determine the amount of the measurement object by using the output of the biological sensor after outputting the trigger information. Morita specifically discloses that once the control unit determines that the contact state of the contact surface of the sensor unit satisfies a predetermined condition (Page 4, paragraph [0038]), the measurement using the biological sensor is started and determines the moisture content in the body of the subject based on the output of the biological sensor (Page 4, paragraph [0041]).
In regard to claim 16, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising: a display having a main surface configured to display the biological information, wherein the contact surface and the main surface of the display are parallel to each other (see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
388
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 19, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, wherein at least one of the optical sensors is on a surface of a recess formed in the contact surface. Sakai teaches that the optical sensor is within a recess formed in the contact surface (see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
231
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 - 5, 7, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (WO 2013136659 A1 - Previously Cited) in view of Isaacson (US5490523A - Previously Cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takagi (JP 2018186880 A - Previously Cited).
In regard to claim 2, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising a housing that has a rod shape and that houses the biological sensor and the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 1, component 100).
While the device disclosed by Morita includes the contact surface at the distal end of the housing of the device such that the contact surface can come into contact with an area of interest on the user, they do not disclose a configuration wherein the contact surface is at a first end side along a longitudinal direction of the housing.
However, Takagi teaches a measuring device where a capacitance sensor is brought into contact with the surface of an intraoral cavity in order to measure moisture levels (Takagi, Page 7, paragraph [0023]). The contact surface and sensors are disposed on the first end side along a longitudinal direction of the housing (FIG. 1, components 20a & 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device disclosed by Morita with the positioning of the contact surface and sensors taught by Takagi because both Morita and Takagi are interested in establishing contact with a region of interest of a user to take a biological measurement and moving the position of the contact surface such that it is on the first end side of the housing would be considered a rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of the device, which would include taking a biological measurement from a user.
In regard to claim 3, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 2, wherein the at least one of the contact detection unit sensors is farther from the first end of the housing than a center of the biological sensor. Morita discloses that the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) are arranged at diagonal positions from one another and at the periphery of the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200; Page 3, paragraph [0027]). Based on the arrangement of the contact detection unit sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that one contact detection unit sensor is farther from the first end of the housing than the center of the biological sensor when the device disclosed by Morita is modified by the teaching of Takagi that the contact surface can be positioned on the side of the housing of the device (see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
403
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 2, wherein the at least one of the contact detection unit sensors is closer to the first end of the housing than a center of the biological sensor. Morita discloses that the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) are arranged at diagonal positions from one another at the periphery of the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200; Page 3, paragraph [0027]). Based on the arrangement of the contact detection unit sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that one contact detection unit sensor is closer to the first end of the housing than the center of the biological sensor when the device disclosed by Morita is modified by the teaching of Takagi that the contact surface can be positioned on the side of the housing of the device (see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
403
463
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 2 wherein the plurality of contact detection unit sensors comprise:
at least one first contact detection unit sensor closer to the first end of the housing than a center of the biological sensor;
and at least one second contact detection unit sensor farther from the first end of the housing than the center of the biological sensor.
Morita discloses that the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) are arranged at diagonal positions from one another and at the periphery of the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200; Page 3, paragraph [0027]). Based on the arrangement of the contact detection unit sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that one contact detection unit sensor is further from the first end of the housing than the center of the biological sensor and one contact detection unit sensor is closer to the first end of the housing than the center of the biological sensor when the device disclosed by Morita is modified by the teaching of Takagi that the contact surface can be positioned on the side of the housing of the device (see annotated FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
403
463
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 5, wherein a plurality of contact detection unit sensors, wherein the plurality of contact detection unit sensors are arranged symmetrically about the biological sensor. Morita discloses a sensor configuration where the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) are arranged at diagonal positions from one another at the periphery of the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200; Page 3, paragraph [0027]). The sensor configuration is symmetrical about a diagonal line as shown below in annotated FIG. 2.
PNG
media_image7.png
403
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 17, Morita discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising: a display having a main surface configured to display the biological information (FIG. 1, component 112). Morita does not disclose that the contact surface and the main surface of the display face opposite directions.
However, Takagi teaches a measurement device where the contact surface (FIG. 1, component 20) and the main surface of the display (FIG. 1, component 11a) face opposite directions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device disclosed by Morita with the positioning of the contact surface and sensors taught by Takagi because it would be considered a rearrangement of parts in a way that does not modify the function of the device, in this case measuring a parameter using a biological sensor.
Claims 11 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (WO 2013136659 A1 - Previously Cited) in view of Isaacson (US5490523A - Previously Cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitchens (US 20190377962 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1. Morita does not disclose that the biological sensor is translucent and has an arrangement surface on a side opposite to the detection surface, and at least one of the optical sensors is arranged on the arrangement surface of the biological sensor.
However, Kitchens teaches a subdermal imaging system which determines whether a person’s body is in contact with a display and measures a biological parameter using a biological sensor using a sensor stack configuration (FIG. 4, component 405). The sensor stack includes a light emitter capable of transmitting an incident light through the one or more substrates of the sensor stack (paragraph [0080]), where the one or more substrates are substantially translucent (paragraph [0081]) with components being formed on or in glass, plastic, or silicon substrate (paragraph [0081]). Additionally, Kitchens teaches that contact between the measuring device and body surface is established (FIG. 3, component 305) using an optical sensor (paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device disclosed by Morita with the sensor stack of Kitchens because doing so would be considered simple substitution of one known art element, in this case the sensors disclosed by Morita with the sensors taught by Kitchens, to obtain the predictable results of detecting if a device is in contact with a body surface and measuring a physiological parameter.
In regard to claim 12, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 11, further comprising a light emitter that is arranged on the contact surface and that is configured to emit light. Kitchens teaches that the sensor stack includes a light emitter (FIG. 4, component 204) positioned on the contact surface (FIG. 4, component 405).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (WO 2013136659 A1 - Previously Cited) in view of Isaacson (US5490523A - Previously Cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howell (US 20060248946 A1 - Previously Cited)
In regard to claim 18, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 1, further comprising: a processor, the processor being configured to control the plurality of contact detection unit sensors. Morita specifically discloses a processor (FIG. 3, component 301) that controls and determines whether sufficient contact between the contact detection unit sensors (FIG. 2, components 230 & 240) and body surface is made (Page 4, paragraph [0032]). Once the predetermined condition of contact is detected, the processor further activates the biological sensor (FIG. 2, component 200) and displays the measurement via the display unit (FIG. 1, component 112). While Morita discloses that the processor (FIG. 3, component 301) is located within the body of the measurement device (Page 4, paragraph [0029]), they do not specifically disclose that the device comprises
a substrate having a main surface on which a processor is mounted or that the contact surface and the main surface of the substrate are parallel to each other.
However, Howell teaches a measurement device for measuring moisture levels of a body surface (FIG. 1B) that includes a processor (FIG. 1B, component 112) mounted on the main surface of the device and that the contact surface (FIG. 1B, component 110) and processor (FIG. 1B, component 112) are parallel to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring device disclosed by Morita with the positioning of the processor as taught by Howell because it would be considered a rearrangement of parts in a way that does not modify the function of the device, in this case measuring a parameter using a biological sensor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (WO 2013136659 A1 - Previously Cited) in view of Isaacson (US5490523A - Previously Cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 110573988 A)
In regard to claim 20, Morita as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth for claim 19. While Isaacson teaches that the optical sensor is within a recess formed within the contact surface, they do not specify that the recess has a tapered shape that increases in cross-sectional area from an interior portion.
However, Xu teaches an electronic device that includes a cavity or recess for containing electrical components (FIG. 7, component 7; Page 8, paragraph 6) which has a tapered shape that increases in cross-sectional area away from an interior portion towards the contact surface. Xu further teaches that the inclined shape of the tapered structure can help guide light (Page 8, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Morita as modified by Isaacson with the teaching that a recess can have a tapered shape because the tapered shape of the recess helps guide light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 - 8, 10 - 12, & 14 - 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that the combination of Morita and Isaacson do not meet the claim limitations because it would not be obvious to combine the measurement device disclosed by Morita, which features a biological sensor and contact detection unit sensors as described in the claim 1 rejection under U.S.C. 103 above with Isaacson, which teaches an optical sensor that is configured to determine if a measurement surface is in contact with a biological surface. However, as stated on the record, modifying the contact detection unit sensors disclosed by Morita, which comprise capacitance type sensors, with the optical sensor taught by Isaacson would be considered simple substitution of one known element for another, in this case the capacitance style contact sensor for an optical contact sensor, to obtain the predictable result of determining if a measurement surface is in contact with a biological surface. As set forth in MPEP 2143, section B., in order to use the rationale of “simple substitution” under 35 U.S.C. 103, the office must articulate a finding that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (the biological measurement device disclosed by Morita which differs from the claimed invention because the contact detection unit sensors comprise capacitance sensors instead of the optical sensors set forth in claim 1); a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (Isaacson teaches a medical sensing device in an analogous field that a contact detection unit sensor can comprise an optical sensor); a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (it is well known in the art that sensors that serve the same functionality, in this case detecting a state of contact between a detection surface and an area of interest, can be substituted with one another); and whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The rationale for the modification of Morita with the teachings of Isaacson clearly meet the requirements set forth in MPEP 2143, section B to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field.
Additionally, applicant argues that the optical sensor in Isaacson serves as both a biological sensor AND a contact sensor, which would unnecessarily complicate the resulting device. However, the optical sensor having the capability to both determine a state of contact and take a biological measurement, in this case a pulse oximetry measurement, has no bearing on the functionality of the sensor to determine a contact state. As written, the claim language does not limit the claim elements from being capable of performing secondary functions.
In regard to claim 8, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or render obvious that “the plurality of contact detection unit sensors surrounds a periphery of the detection surface of the biological sensor,” but fails to describe in what way the applied art fails to meet the claim limitation. As stated in the 103 rejection of claim 8, Morita discloses the measuring device can include four contact detection unit sensors arranged at positions facing each other at equal intervals on the outer periphery of the biological sensor (Page 4, paragraph [0028]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “surround” would only require that the contact detection unit sensors extend around the margin or the edge of an object, not entirely enclose the biological sensor. Having one contact detection unit sensor on each side of the biological sensor reasonably meets the claim limitations of claim 8.
In regard to claim 21, the invention of claim 21 is a distinct embodiment or species of the originally claimed invention of claim 1. As such, claim 21 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention as set forth in the above Election/Restriction section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791