DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 12/01/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 is as follows.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo (WO 2007101343) in further view of Bray (US 20220257851).
Regarding independent claim 1, Foo teaches an in-bed device configured to be positioned under a user (Abstract: “Apparatus for monitoring vital signs of one or more living subjects comprises a monitoring station and at least one sensor in communication with the monitoring station”), the in-bed device comprising:
one or more substrates shaped to be positioned on a bed ([0014]: “System 10 has a monitoring station 12 and one or more sensing units 14. In the illustrated embodiment, sensing units 14 include sensing units 14A and 14B that are located under the mattresses 16 of beds 17”).
However, Foo does not teach the one or more substrates comprising a flexible circuit.
Bray discloses a sensor sheet for monitoring a user on a bed. Specifically, Bray teaches the one or more substrates comprising a flexible circuit ([0079]: “the substrate can include one or more flexible circuit boards”). Foo and Bray are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to monitor patients in a bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the flexible circuit from Bray into the device from Foo as it allows the device to be flexible, which is ideal in an in-bed device as the user will be putting pressure on the device, and the circuit being flexible keeps it from breaking when a user is on it.
The Foo/Bray combination teaches a wireless transceiver disposed on at least one of the one or more substrates; an antenna comprising a conductive trace disposed on the one or more substrates, the antenna coupled to the wireless transceiver (Foo, [0009]: “Some specific aspects of the invention provide antennas and antenna arrays that may be used to send and/or receive UWB signals; UWB radar transceiver circuits” [0029]: “Figure 4B shows another possible arrangement in which a number of antenna modules 43 each have a number of transmit antennas 31A and a number of receive antennas 31B. Modules 43 may be connected to an electronics module 44 containing a UWB transceiver by suitable waveguides such as coaxial cables 45”), the wireless transceiver configured to transmit wireless pulses and receive the transmitted wireless pulses via the antenna (Foo, [0026]: “Antenna system 31 may comprise an array of transmit antennas 31 A and an array of receive antennas 31B. The transmit and receive antennas are distributed over an area broad enough to be able to cause and detect reflected pulses 42 from patient P in any reasonable position and posture on mattress 16.”); and
a control system configured to: cause the wireless transceiver to transmit a first wireless pulse using the antenna; receive the first wireless pulse using the antenna (Foo, [0024]: “a control 38 coordinates the operation of sensing unit 14. Control 38 may, for example, comprise a programmable microprocessor executing software instructions, logic circuits, or some combination thereof.”).
However, the Foo/Bray combination is silent on the location of the control system.
Bray teaches the control system positioned within the in-bed device ([0010]: “The processor can be positioned on the substrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the control system being positioned within the in-bed device from Bray into the Foo/Bray combination as the combination is silent on the location of the control system, and Bray discloses a suitable location in an analogous device.
The Foo/Bray combination teaches the step of analyze the received first wireless pulse from the antenna to determine whether the bed is occupied by a user (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”).
Regarding claim 5, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver is positioned on one side of the in-bed device (Foo, [0009]: “Some specific aspects of the invention provide antennas and antenna arrays that may be used to send and/or receive UWB signals; UWB radar transceiver circuits”; Fig. 1. The specific location of the transceiver within the device is not explicitly stated, however it can be located at any place in the device, including one side.) and the antenna spans at least 75% of a width of the in- bed device (Foo, [0026]: “The transmit and receive antennas are distributed over an area broad enough to be able to cause and detect reflected pulses 42 from patient P in any reasonable position and posture on mattress 16”. If the antenna are able to send any reasonable position and posture on the mattress, it is obvious that it covers at least 75% of the width of the device.).
Regarding claim 6, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 1, wherein the wireless transceiver operates at a frequency between 2 GHz and 8 GHz (Foo, [0004]: “some devices may be made to operate in a sub- band of the UWB spectrum that occupies the UWB spectrum in the range of 3.6 GHz to 4.6 GHz”).
Regarding claim 7, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 1, further comprising a pouch made of fabric, plastic, or silicone rubber, wherein the one or more substrates, the wireless transceiver, and the antenna are housed in the pouch (Foo, [0030]: “The apparatus of Figure 4B may be enclosed within a suitable housing for placement under the mattress of a bed. The housing provides insulation of antennas 31 A and 31 B from contact with any dielectric or metallic surface that could affect their performance … The housing may include a radome for environmental protection. The radome may be formed, for example, from a thin layer of plastic.”).
Regarding independent claim 8, Foo teaches an in-bed device configured to be positioned under a user (Abstract: “Apparatus for monitoring vital signs of one or more living subjects comprises a monitoring station and at least one sensor in communication with the monitoring station”), the in-bed device comprising:
a substrate configured to be positioned on a bed ([0014]: “System 10 has a monitoring station 12 and one or more sensing units 14. In the illustrated embodiment, sensing units 14 include sensing units 14A and 14B that are located under the mattresses 16 of beds 17”).
However, Foo does not teach the substrate comprising a flexible circuit.
Bray discloses a sensor sheet for monitoring a user on a bed. Specifically, Bray teaches the substrate comprising a flexible circuit ([0079]: “the substrate can include one or more flexible circuit boards”). Foo and Bray are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to monitor patients in a bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the flexible circuit from Bray into the device from Foo as it allows the device to be flexible, which is ideal in an in-bed device as the user will be putting pressure on the device, and the circuit being flexible keeps it from breaking when a user is on it.
The Foo/Bray combination teaches a wireless transmitter disposed at a first position on the substrate; a wireless receiver disposed at a second position on the substrate (Foo, [0009]: “Some specific aspects of the invention provide antennas and antenna arrays that may be used to send and/or receive UWB signals; UWB radar transceiver circuits” [0029]: “Figure 4B shows another possible arrangement in which a number of antenna modules 43 each have a number of transmit antennas 31A and a number of receive antennas 31B. Modules 43 may be connected to an electronics module 44 containing a UWB transceiver by suitable waveguides such as coaxial cables 45”), the second position spaced apart from the first position (Foo, Fig. 4B, reference characters 31A and 31B. Since the transmit antennas and receive antennas are in different locations, the wireless transmitter and the wireless receiver are in spaced apart positions.);
a first antenna electrically coupled to the wireless transmitter, the first antenna comprising one or more conductive traces disposed over the substrate ([0029]: “Figure 4B shows another possible arrangement in which a number of antenna modules 43 each have a number of transmit antennas 31A and a number of receive antennas 31B. Modules 43 may be connected to an electronics module 44 containing a UWB transceiver by suitable waveguides such as coaxial cables 45”), the wireless transmitter configured to transmit wireless pulses via the first antenna; a second antenna electrically coupled to the wireless receiver (Foo, [0026]: “Antenna system 31 may comprise an array of transmit antennas 31 A and an array of receive antennas 31B. The transmit and receive antennas are distributed over an area broad enough to be able to cause and detect reflected pulses 42 from patient P in any reasonable position and posture on mattress 16.”), the second antenna comprising one or more conductive traces disposed over the substrate (Foo, [0029]: “Figure 4B shows another possible arrangement in which a number of antenna modules 43 each have a number of transmit antennas 31A and a number of receive antennas 31B. Modules 43 may be connected to an electronics module 44 containing a UWB transceiver by suitable waveguides such as coaxial cables 45”), the wireless receiver configured to receive, via the second antenna, the wireless pulses transmitted by the wireless transmitter ([0026]: “Antenna system 31 may comprise an array of transmit antennas 31 A and an array of receive antennas 31B. The transmit and receive antennas are distributed over an area broad enough to be able to cause and detect reflected pulses 42 from patient P in any reasonable position and posture on mattress 16.”); and
a control system configured to operate the wireless transmitter to generate a first wireless pulse that is transmitted by the first antenna; receive, from the wireless receiver via the second antenna, the first wireless pulse (Foo, [0024]: “a control 38 coordinates the operation of sensing unit 14. Control 38 may, for example, comprise a programmable microprocessor executing software instructions, logic circuits, or some combination thereof.”).
However, the Foo/Bray combination is silent on the location of the control system.
Bray teaches the control system positioned within the in-bed device ([0010]: “The processor can be positioned on the substrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the control system being positioned within the in-bed device from Bray into the Foo/Bray combination as the combination is silent on the location of the control system, and Bray discloses a suitable location in an analogous device.
The Foo/Bray combination teaches the step of determine whether the bed is occupied by a user by analyzing the received first wireless pulse (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”).
Regarding claim 12, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 8, wherein the wireless transmitter and the wireless receiver are ultra-wideband transceivers (Foo, [0013]: “The following description describes antennas for transmitting and/or receiving ultra wideband signals, circuits for generating ultra wideband signals and systems for monitoring for the presence, activity and/or vital signs of people or animals.”).
Regarding claim 13, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 8, wherein the wireless transmitter and the wireless receiver are Wi-Fi transceivers (Foo, Claim 48: “the at least one sensor and the monitoring station each comprises a wireless data transceiver and the information is transmitted from the at least one sensor to the monitoring station wirelessly by way of the wireless data transceivers.”).
Regarding claim 14, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 8, further comprising: a first wireless transceiver including the wireless transmitter; and a second wireless transceiver including the wireless receiver (Foo, Claim 48: “the at least one sensor and the monitoring station each comprises a wireless data transceiver and the information is transmitted from the at least one sensor to the monitoring station wirelessly by way of the wireless data transceivers.”; [0003]: “UWB devices can also be used for wireless communications”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Foo/Bray combination as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Correa (US 20200178887).
Regarding claim 2, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 1, further comprising: wherein, the control system is configured to, determine, before actuating an alarm to provide an alarm to the user, the bed is occupied by the user (Foo, [0018]: “Monitoring station 12 may generate alarms if the data signals meet specified alarm criteria. The alarm criteria may include, for example: a person is present but has not moved and has not had a detectable heart beat or respiration for more than a threshold period; a person who should remain present at a sensing unit 14 is no longer detected as being present; a person is detected in a restricted area; and, the like.”).
However, the Foo/Bray combination does not teach a deformable mat in which the one or more substrates, the wireless transceiver, and the antenna are housed; and a haptic feedback device housed within the deformable mat.
Bray teaches a deformable mat in which the one or more substrates, the wireless transceiver, and the antenna are housed ([0028]: “Sensor systems and methods disclosed herein may be incorporated into cushioning or bed padding”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the deformable mat from Bray into the Foo/Bray combination as it allows the device to be incorporated into a flexible mat, which allows it to fit comfortably in the bed and allows the device to deform when the user puts pressure on the bed.
However, the Foo/Bray combination does not teach a haptic feedback device housed within the deformable mat.
Correa discloses a sleep monitoring system with alarm functionality. Specifically, Correa teaches a haptic feedback device housed within the deformable mat ([0171]: “the first intensity level may involve activating a haptic feedback device for a vibrational alarm”). Foo, Bray, and Correa are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used to monitor patients in a bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the haptic feedback device from Correa into the Foo/Bray combination as it is a simple substitution for the audio alarm in Foo, and is able to provide a similar notification to the user.
Regarding claim 3, the Foo/Bray/Correa combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 2, wherein the haptic feedback device comprises a pneumatic feedback device (Correa, [0017]: “FIG. 15 depicts pressure, frequency, and amplitude parameters for an example pneumatic wake-up alarm system”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Foo/Bray combination as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Comparone (US 20190365574).
Regarding claim 9, the Foo/Bray combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 8.
However, the Foo/Bray combination is silent on the orientation of the antennae.
Comparone discloses an in-bed monitoring system using antennae. Specifically, Comparone teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna extend toward each other ([0092]: “antennae 13, 14 are coupled to head section 32 near the left edge thereof and more toward the foot end of head section 32. Antenna 14 is coupled to seat section 33 near the left edge therefor and more toward the head end of seat section 33”). Foo, Bray, and Comparone are analogous arts as they are all related to systems that monitor a user while they are in bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the orientation of the antennae from Comparone into the Foo/Bray combination as the combination is silent on the orientation, and Comparone provides a suitable orientation in an analogous device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Foo/Bray/Comparone combination as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lowe (US 20130187789).
Regarding claim 10, the Foo/Bray/Comparone combination teaches the in-bed device of claim 9.
However, the Foo/Bray/Comparone combination is silent on the type of antenna used.
Lowe discloses a wearable device assembly having antenna. Specifically, Lowe teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are linear antennas and extend along a common line ([0095]: “The other five V-shaped sections 1024-1032 of the antenna 800 are respectively formed by the second and third linear antenna portions 1010 and 1012, the third and fourth linear antenna portions 1012 and 1014, and the fourth and fifth linear antenna portions 1014 and 1016, the fifth and sixth linear antenna portions 1016 and 1018, and the sixth and seventh linear antenna portions 1018 and 1020, which are similarly disposed at an angle relative to one another.”). Foo, Bray, Comparone, and Lowe are analogous arts as they are all related to systems used to monitor users with antennae.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the antenna type from Lowe into the Foo/Bray/Comparone combination as the combination is silent on the type of antenna used, and Lowe provides a suitable antenna in an analogous device.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in further view of Bray and Borsody (CN 113272911).
Regarding independent claim 15, Foo teaches a method ([0002]: “The invention relates to apparatus and methods for monitoring for the presence, activity and/or physiological signs of people or animals”), comprising:
transmitting, using a control system ([0024]: “a control 38 coordinates the operation of sensing unit 14. Control 38 may, for example, comprise a programmable microprocessor executing software instructions, logic circuits, or some combination thereof.”), a first wireless pulse through a first antenna coupled to a substrate of the in-bed device; receiving, using the control system via a second antenna coupled to the substrate of the in-bed device, the first wireless pulse ([0026]: “Antenna system 31 may comprise an array of transmit antennas 31 A and an array of receive antennas 31B. The transmit and receive antennas are distributed over an area broad enough to be able to cause and detect reflected pulses 42 from patient P in any reasonable position and posture on mattress 16.”; [0014]: “System 10 has a monitoring station 12 and one or more sensing units 14. In the illustrated embodiment, sensing units 14 include sensing units 14A and 14B that are located under the mattresses 16 of beds 17”).
However, Foo is silent on the location of the control system.
Bray teaches the control system positioned within the in-bed device ([0010]: “The processor can be positioned on the substrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the control system being positioned within the in-bed device from Bray into the device from Foo as the combination is silent on the location of the control system, and Bray discloses a suitable location in an analogous device.
The Foo/Bray combination teaches analyzing amplitude (Claim 46: “Apparatus according to claim 44 comprising means for monitoring a motion signal indicative of motions of a living subject and, based at least in part upon an amplitude or duration of the motion signal”), however, the Foo/Bray combination does not teach decomposing the received first wireless pulse into amplitude and phase components.
Borsody discloses a medical device and methods for diagnosing and treating diseases. Specifically, Borsody teaches decomposing the received first wireless pulse into amplitude and phase components ([0062]: “each complex input feature is decomposed into amplitude and phase”). Foo, Bray, and Borsody are analogous arts as they are all related to monitoring systems for evaluating a user while they are in bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the decomposition of the wireless signals from Borsody into the method from the Foo/Bray combination as it allows for the signal to be decomposed into different parts that are easier to analyze and provide a more comprehensive analysis and result for the user.
The Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches determining, at least partly based on the amplitude and phase components, an occupancy condition of a bed (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”).
Regarding claim 16, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein receiving the first wireless pulse comprises receiving a reflection of the first wireless pulse along the first antenna (Foo, [0022]: “If a person is present in the space then the pulses are reflected at interfaces within the person's body, such as surfaces of the lungs and heart. Reflected pulses are received at antenna 31 and detected by UWB radar 30.”).
Regarding claim 17, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the second antenna is spaced apart from the first antenna (Foo, Figure 4, reference characters 31A and 31B).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Garcia Molina (US 20220175600).
Regarding claim 18, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising: determining the bed is not occupied (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”).
However, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination does not teach powering a sensor of the in-bed device off or transitioning the sensor to a low-power state in response to determining the bed is not occupied.
Garcia Molina discloses a bed having features for automatic sensing of a user. Specifically, Garcia Molina teaches powering a sensor of the in-bed device off or transitioning the sensor to a low-power state in response to determining the bed is not occupied ([0190]: “A controller on the bed 1904 can generate the sensor signals 1908 based on the state of the sleeper 1902, the environment the sleeper 1902 is in, etc.”; [0074]: “The control circuitry 334 can determine that the user 308 is awake for the day, for example, by detecting that the user 308 has gotten off of the bed … In response to the control circuitry 334 determining that the user 308 is awake, the control circuitry 334 can generate control signals to cause the lighting system”; [0071]: “upon detecting that the user 308 is asleep, the control circuitry 334 can generate and transmit a control signal to the user device 310 to cause the user device 310 to turn off, or turn down the volume on a video or audio file being played by the user device 310.”). Foo, Bray, Borsody, and Garcia Molina are analogous devices as they are all related to systems and methods that monitor a user while on a bed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the step of powering a sensor off when a user is not in bed form Garcia Molina into the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination as it allows the combination to save power while the user is not in bed, since there is nothing to detect if they are not present, so the sensor is not necessary.
Regarding claim 19, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining the bed is occupied by a user (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”).
However, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination does not teach powering on a sensor to capture a parameter of the user, in response to determining the bed is occupied by the user.
Garcia Molina teaches powering on a sensor to capture a parameter of the user, in response to determining the bed is occupied by the user ([0190]: “A controller on the bed 1904 can generate the sensor signals 1908 based on the state of the sleeper 1902, the environment the sleeper 1902 is in, etc.”; [0074]: “The control circuitry 334 can determine that the user 308 is awake for the day, for example, by detecting that the user 308 has gotten off of the bed … In response to the control circuitry 334 determining that the user 308 is awake, the control circuitry 334 can generate control signals to cause the lighting system”; [0046]: “the control box 124 can analyze a pressure signal detected by one or more pressure sensors to determine a heart rate, respiration rate, and/or other vital signs of a user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the step of powering on a sensor when the user is detected from Garcia Molina into the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination as it allows the sensor to be turned on when the user is in bed, which allows the sensor to generate measurements of the user.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Correa.
Regarding claim 20, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining the bed is occupied by a user (Foo, [0062]: “A signal processing system 33 may set a status flag based on the combination of signals at outputs 102 and 106. The status flag may, for example, have values of NOT OCCUPIED, MOTION, and NORMAL”); and applying feedback to the user in response to determining the bed is occupied by the user (Foo, [0018]: “Monitoring station 12 may generate alarms if the data signals meet specified alarm criteria. The alarm criteria may include, for example: a person is present but has not moved and has not had a detectable heart beat or respiration for more than a threshold period; a person who should remain present at a sensing unit 14 is no longer detected as being present; a person is detected in a restricted area; and, the like.”).
However, the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination does not teach the feedback being haptic feedback.
Correa teaches the feedback being haptic feedback ([0171]: “the first intensity level may involve activating a haptic feedback device for a vibrational alarm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the haptic feedback from Correa into the Foo/Bray/Borsody combination as it is a simple substitution for the audio alarm in Foo, and is able to provide a similar notification to the user.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791