DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 allowable. Claims 10, 19 and 20, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/26/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 10, 19 and 20 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because several of the figures, including FIGS. 18A-18F, 30A-50B, 55A-68 are greyscale, are difficult to view, and do not guarantee reproducibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “wherein the electroplated material comprises” should be amended to recite “wherein the electroplated material is selected from the group consisting of:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the one or more sensing element” in the last two lines of the claim render the claim indefinite. A single sensing element lacks proper antecedent basis, because only “sensing elements” are previously claimed. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “the one or more sensing elements”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the entire circumference” lacks proper antecedent basis, because claim 5 sets forth “a circumference”, i.e., claim 5 only suggests a portion of the circumference, an entire circumference as not been established. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the antenna opening has a 360-degree circumference, and the tapered portion extends less than 360 degrees of the circumference of the antenna opening.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation “fully-embedded” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what the sensor assembly is intended to be embedded in.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “specific patient” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the “specific patient” in claim 13 is the same patient as set forth in claim 1. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the same patient.
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, the term “correct orientation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correct orientation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record upon resolution of the aforementioned 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. The prior art of record fails to disclose Claim 1. The most relevant prior art of record includes:
US 20190223751 A1 to Weinstein et al. who disclose the PCB fluid sensor, power source and case with a sensing opening, but does not disclose the antenna coupled to the PCB’s bottom and extending through an opening in the PCB (it uses the molar band itself as the antenna).
US 10561351 B2 to Lucisano et al. who disclose flat stacked fluid sensor architecture (sensor, battery below, discrete antenna, case with fluid port) but does not teach the antenna coupled to the bottom and routed through the same board (its antenna sits on the opposite housing wall).
US 20070236404 A1 to Snider et al. who disclose an antenna that protrudes through an opening in the board to radiate outward, but does not teach a physiologic fluid sensor on the board or the power source between the board or fluid-port sensing.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights