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
With respect to the lack of unity requirement as presented in the Office Action dated 8/22/2025 (the second lack of unity requirement), there was to be an election to be made between species A2 (claim 12) and B2 (claim 13) for the Second Group of Species. During a telephone conversation with Justin Theam on 8/18/2025, the Examiner remembers that a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of species A2.1 In the Response filed on 11/24/2025, Mr. Theam remembers that species B2 was verbally elected with traverse. Since it is not possible to prove who is remembering the election correctly, the Examiner will treat the election as being the election of species B2. Claim 12 will be withdrawn from consideration and claims 13 and 23 will be examined. The new rejection of claim 13 is still necessitated by amendment since the amendments to claim 1 from which claim 13 depends necessitated new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the second lack of unity requirement, the Applicant provides no specific arguments regarding the merits of the lack of unity requirement that the Examiner can respond to.
The Applicant also asserts that claim 1 is now amended so as to recite “a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit a load bearing indication that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight and, responsive to detachment of the housing from the foot, repeatedly transmit a detachment indication, the detachment indication comprising a burst communication” and, because JP 2014-46151 (Noriyuki)(previously cited)2 does not teach this feature, the lack of unity should be withdrawn. This argument is not persuasive since (1) it does not touch the merits of the second lack of unity requirement and (2) claim 1 still does not have a special technical feature since the technical feature of claim 1 does not make a contribution over the prior art, as presented in the below prior art rejections.
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.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 6: “weight and,” should be “weight, and”.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the power source comprises a piezoelectric element configured to change shape and generate a charge responsive to the detachment of the housing from the foot to cause the transmitter to transmit the detachment indication” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. First, the power source of claim 1 is recited to be “configured to supply power to the transmitter and the pressure sensor” in lines 15-16 of claim 1. The piezoelectric element does not seem capable of carrying out this function of claim 1. This incongruity between the recited elements of the power source and the functions of the power source creates confusion that renders claim 23 indefinite.
Second, the transmitter of claim 1 is recited to be “responsive to detachment of the housing from the foot” in lines 5-8, which runs counter to the power source of claim 23 being “responsive to the detachment of the housing from the foot”. It is not clear which element is actually responsive to the detachment of the housing from the foot. This contradiction or ambiguity renders claim 23 indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-46151 (Noriyuki)(previously cited), in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0117080 (Ma), and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0359457 (Blumenthal)(previously cited). Citations to Noriyuki will refer to the translation that accompanied the Office Action mailed on 6/6/2025.
With respect to claim 1, Noriyuki teaches a device for monitoring load bearing of a foot, the device comprising:
a housing (the insole 3 of Noriyuki or the combination of the sole 3 and the shoe of Noriyuki; page 2 of Noriyuki) configured to be positioned under the foot of a patient and be attached to the foot;
a transmitter (the wireless communication unit 31 of Noriyuki) configured to wirelessly transmit a load bearing indication that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight;
a pressure sensor (the pressure sensor 32 and the CPU 38 of Noriyuki) configured to: wake up from a sleep mode responsive to the portion of the foot supporting the at least the threshold weight (step S12 of Noriyuki), cause the transmitter to transmit the load bearing indication (steps S13-S16 of Noriyuki), and return to the sleep mode within a set period of time after the waking up from the sleep mode (steps S17-S18 of Noriyuki); and
a power source (the battery unit 34 of Noriyuki) configured to supply power to the transmitter and the pressure sensor.
Ma teaches the use of a proximity sensor to detect the presence of the body part inside footwear and to determine that the footwear is currently being worn on the user's foot based on an output of the proximity sensor (paragraph 0024 of Ma). Proximity to the foot triggers a change in the output state of the proximity sensor 118, which triggers the controller to transition from a sleep state to an active state. Once in the active state, the controller regularly samples the proximity sensor 118 to confirm the placement of the footwear on the user’s foot (paragraph 0024 of Ma). If the output of the proximity sensor indicates that the footwear is no longer present on the foot, the controller can return to the inactive state. The footwear can implement this process prior to executing each scan cycle, including subsequent uses (paragraph 0036 of Ma). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the proximity sensor 118 of Ma to detect detachment at each occurrence, and notify via having the controller go into sleep mode since it provides a simple, reliable and cost-efficient way of detecting if the sensor device is detached from a user and providing an alert to the user of the detachment and/or saving power. Thus, the combination includes a transmitter that is configured to, responsive to detachment of the housing from the foot, repeatedly transmit a detachment indication (the use of the detachment application at each use makes it a repeated transmission).
Blumenthal teaches that such transmission can be in burst mode so that the wireless network receiver and transmitter can be powered off for a majority of the time to reduce power consumption (paragraph 0111 of Blumenthal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use burst communication for the wireless communication of the combination since it reduces power consumption and/or it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus, the combination teaches that the detachment indication comprises a burst communication since the wireless transmission (including from the proximity sensor) are burst communications.
With respect to claim 3, Noriyuki teaches that the housing is configured to enclose the transmitter, the pressure sensor, and the power source (FIG. 2 of Noriyuki shows that the wireless communication unit 31, the pressure sensor 32, the CPU 38, and the battery unit 34 to be enclosed by the insole 3 (and by extension the shoe of Noriyuki)).
With respect to claim 5, Noriyuki teaches that the pressure sensor is initiated responsive to a user input (the input unit 16 interfaces with the CPU 38 of Noriyuki; page 2 of Noriyuki).
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0163287 (Vock)(previously cited), in view of CN 110025316 (Zhang)(previously cited), and further in view of WO 2019/161857 (Lykkegaard)(previously cited), and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0359457 (Blumenthal)(previously cited). Citations to Zhang will refer to the translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Vock teaches a device for monitoring load bearing of a foot, the device comprising: a housing (the housing of FIG. 17 of Vock and the adhesive strips 908; paragraphs 0271 and 0351 of Vock) configured to be positioned under a foot of a patient and attach to the foot (FIG. 57 of Vock; paragraph 0351 of Vock); a transmitter (the communications port 16 of Vock; paragraphs 0193, 0195, and 0351 of Vock) configured to wirelessly transmit an indication that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight to a remote receiver 24 and/or 912; and a force sensing resistors 902 of Vock (paragraph 0351 of Vock). Note that paragraph 0351 of Vock teaches that the elements of FIG. 57 of Vock is in addition to the device of 10 of FIG. 1 of Vock.
Vock also teaches that a strain gauge pressure sensor is a suitable substitute for a force sensing resistor (paragraph 0363 of Vock). 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 strain gauge pressure sensor for the force sensing resistor of Vock because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Vock teaches that the MMD 900 generates wireless data 910 each time the MMD 900 experiences at least one-fourth of the entire weight and that the data 910 is transmitted to the receiver 912 (paragraph 0352 of Vock). Zhang teaches a lower power consumption monitoring system in which:
(1) when the system is initialized, the default status is in a non-activated state;
(2) if the sensor signal remains in the set threshold range R over a period of time T, the system remains in the non-activated state (the stationary state) such that there is no wireless transmission to the module for collection and analysis;
(3) if the sensor signal changes such that its amplitude exceeds the threshold range, the status is activated (the motion state) in which there is wireless transmission of the sensor data to the module for collection and analysis;3 and
(4) when the wearer is in the stationary state (i.e., if the sensor signal changes such that its amplitude does not exceed the threshold range), the non-activated state is restored (page 5 of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the operation regime of Zhang using the non-activated condition, the action to wake up from the non-activated state, and the action to return to the non-activated state in the system of Vock because it will conserve power.
Lykkegaard teaches a break detector 8 arranged and configured to break if the sensor device is detached from the user (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). An alert is transmitted to one or more remote receivers when the break detector breaks (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). The break detector is formed as an electrical wire having a thickness that allows it to break due to the deformation of the mounting structure, when the sensor device is removed from the skin of a user (pages 6-7 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). When the wire 3 breaks, the device measures directly that the connection is broken and stores the event of detachment (page 18 of Lykkegaard). Wireless transmission is also disclosed throughout Lykkegaard including pages 3 and 5 of Lykkegaard. Such an arrangement provides a simple, reliable and cost-efficient way of detecting if the sensor device is detached from a user and providing the notification alert of Lykkegaard to the user of the detachment (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the break detector 8 to detect detachment, store the event of detachment, and notify via a notification alert to the remote receiver 24 and/or 912 of Vock via wireless transmission in the combination since it provides a simple, reliable and cost-efficient way of detecting if the sensor device is detached from a user and providing the notification alert of Lykkegaard to the user of the detachment.
The combination teaches or suggests a communications port 16 configured to wirelessly transmit an indication that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight (paragraphs 0193, 0195, and 0351-0352 of Vock) as well as wirelessly transmitting the notification alert of Lykkegaard to the remote device of Vock. Blumenthal teaches that such transmission can be in burst mode so that the wireless network receiver and transmitter can be powered off for a majority of the time to reduce power consumption (paragraph 0111 of Blumenthal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use burst communication for the wireless communication of the combination since it reduces power consumption and/or it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a device for monitoring load bearing of a foot, the device comprising:
a housing (the housing of FIG. 17 of Vock and the adhesive strips 908 of Vock; paragraphs 0271 and 0351 of Vock) configured to be positioned under the foot of a patient and be attached to the foot (FIG. 57 of Vock; paragraph 0351 of Vock);
a transmitter (the communications port 16 of Vock; paragraphs 0193, 0195, and 0351of Vock) configured to wirelessly transmit a load bearing indication (the wireless transmission of the load bearing indication of Vock; paragraphs 0193, 0195, and 0351-0352 of Vock) that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight and, responsive to detachment of the housing from the foot, repeatedly transmit a detachment indication (the wireless transmission of the detachment indication of Lykkegaard), the detachment indication comprising a burst communication (the burst communication of Blumenthal);
a pressure sensor (the strain gauge pressure sensor and the processor 14 of Vock; paragraphs 0193, 0351-0352 and 0363 of Vock) configured to: wake up from a sleep mode responsive to the portion of the foot supporting the at least the threshold weight (the action to wake up from the non-activated state of Zhang; page 5 of Zhang; the MMD 900 then generates wireless data 910 each time the MMD 900 experiences at least one-fourth of the entire weight; paragraph 0352 of Vock), cause the transmitter to transmit the load bearing indication (the data 910 is transmitted to the receiver 912 in the activated state of Zhang; paragraph 0352 of Vock), and return to the sleep mode within a set period of time after the waking up from the sleep mode (the action to return to the non-activated state of Zhang); and
a power source (the battery 18 of Vock) configured to supply power to the transmitter and the pressure sensor.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that the load bearing indication is a burst communication (the burst communication of Blumenthal).
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests that the housing is configured to enclose the transmitter, the pressure sensor, and the power source (see FIGS. 1, 17, and 57 of Vock).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests an adhesive configured to attach the housing to the foot (the adhesive on the adhesive strips 908 of Vock; paragraph 0351 of Vock).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that the pressure sensor is configured to be initiated responsive to a user input, and wherein responsive to the pressure sensor being initiated, the pressure sensor is configured to: wake up from the sleep mode responsive to the portion of the foot supporting the at least the threshold weight, cause the transmitter to transmit the load bearing indication, and return to the sleep mode within the set period of time after the waking up from the sleep mode (the user input and two way communication of Vock; paragraph 0354 of Vock; it would have been obvious to include the user input and two way communication of Vock since it permits the user to query weight data at any time; the two-way communication permits queries for weight data that wakes up the strain gauge pressure sensor and the processor 14 of Vock, cause transmission of the weight, and return to sleep after the query).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests that the housing is configured to be destroyed by the detachment of the housing from the foot (the break detector 8 of Lykkegaard on the adhesive strip of Vock is considered part of the housing and is broken (destroyed) by detachment of the adhesive strip of Vock from the foot; pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests that the transmitter is configured to, responsive to the detachment of the housing from the foot, repeatedly transmit the detachment indication until an energy level of the power source depletes to a threshold level (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard does not teach that the alert is turned off in any manner such that it is implicit that the alert would continue until the power source of the transmission (i.e., battery) is off or depleted since Vock teaches that the battery has a limited time of usability; paragraph 0042 of Vock).
With respect to claim 10, the combination teaches or suggests that the load bearing indication comprises a notification to the patient to move the foot (the data 910 is converted and displayed on receiver 912 each time the MMD 900 experiences at least one-fourth of the entire weight which denotes movement of the foot; paragraph 0352 of Vock).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggest a power source (the battery 18 of Vock) configured to supply power to the transmitter and the pressure sensor in the form of a battery 18 of Vock. Lykkegaard teaches that a piezo mechanical harvesting unit is a suitable substitute for a battery (page 4 of Lykkegaard). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the piezo mechanical harvesting unit of Lykkegaard in place of the battery since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests that the power source comprises a piezoelectric element configured to generate power responsive to an application of pressure to the housing (the piezo mechanical harvesting unit of Lykkegaard).
With respect to claim 23, the combination teaches or suggest that the power source comprises a piezoelectric element configured to change shape (the piezo mechanical harvesting unit of Lykkegaard is configured to be mechanically deformed; page 4 of Lykkegaard) and generate a charge responsive to the detachment of the housing from the foot to cause the transmitter to transmit the detachment indication (the piezo mechanical harvesting unit of Lykkegaard is capable of this charge generation upon movement of the housing during detachment).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Lykkegaard, and further in view of Blumenthal, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0104982 (Dunn)(previously cited). Citations to Zhang will refer to the translation that accompanies this Office Action.
The combination teaches or suggests an adhesive configured to attach the housing to the foot (the adhesive on the adhesive strips 908 of Vock; paragraph 0351 of Vock). Dunn teaches that hydrogel is a suitable type of adhesive (paragraph 0047 of Dunn). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogel as the adhesive of Vock since (1) an adhesive is required and Dunn teaches such an adhesive and/or (2) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests that the housing comprises a gel and a plurality of encapsulation layers (the housing of FIG. 17 of Vock and the strip material of the adhesive strips 908 of Vock; paragraphs 0271 and 0351 of Vock).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Vock, in view of Zhang, and further in view of Lykkegaard, and further in view of Blumenthal, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234249 (Randolph)(previously cited). Citations to Zhang will refer to the translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Randolph teaches the use of a speaker to emit sound so as to audible alert a patient when a signal is received from a pressure switch (paragraph 0035 of Randolph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the speaker of Randolph to emit sound so as to audible alert a patient when at least one-fourth of the entire weight is sensed by the sensor of Vock since it provide information of the user without the need for the user to look at the display.
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests a speaker configured to audibly present the load bearing indication (the speaker of Randolph; paragraph 0035 of Randolph).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim objections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 11/24/2025, the previous claim objections are withdrawn. However, there are new grounds of claim objections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 11/24/2025.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 11/24/2025, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn. However, there are new grounds of claim rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 11/24/2025.
Prior art rejection
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 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. That is, there are new grounds of rejection that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 11/24/2025.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
311
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. Lykkegaard teaches a break detector 8 arranged and configured to break if the sensor device is detached from a user (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). Page 6 of Lykkegaard teaches that an alert is transmitted to one or more remote receivers when the break detector breaks (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). Thus, Lykkegaard teaches the transmission of the detachment indication. Also, wireless transmission is also disclosed throughout Lykkegaard including pages 3 and 5 of Lykkegaard.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image2.png
62
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
156
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. Lykkegaard teaches a break detector 8 arranged and configured to break if the sensor device is detached from a user (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). Page 6 of Lykkegaard teaches that an alert is transmitted to one or more remote receivers when the break detector breaks (pages 6 and 16-18 of Lykkegaard). Thus, Lykkegaard teaches the transmission of the detachment indication. Also, wireless transmission is also disclosed throughout Lykkegaard including pages 3 and 5 of Lykkegaard.
As to burst communication, the combination teaches or suggests a communications port 16 configured to wirelessly transmit an indication that a portion of the foot is supporting at least a threshold weight (paragraphs 0193, 0195, and 0351-0352 of Vock) as well as wirelessly transmitting the notification alert of Lykkegaard to the remote device of Vock. Blumenthal teaches that such transmission can be in burst mode so that the wireless network receiver and transmitter can be powered off for a majority of the time to reduce power consumption (paragraph 0111 of Blumenthal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use burst communication for the wireless communication of the combination since it reduces power consumption and/or it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image4.png
288
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a set period of time” merely means a designated time span. The designated time span is the time of the activated state (i.e., after the action to wake up from the non-activated state of Zhang and before the non-activated state of Zhang). A “set period of time” is not limited to a time span of fixed duration. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the above the rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims are proper.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Specifically, the Examiner remembers Mr. Theam saying that the elections of the species are the same elections that were presented in the response filed on 8/6/2025. The election in the response filed on 8/6/2025 for the Second Group of Species was species A2.
2 As a minor point, the Applicant asserts that this reference is referred by the reference numeral 2014-046151. It is pointed out that the reference numeral on the face of the document itself is 2014-46151, which is the reference numeral that the Examiner used. However, the reference numeral JP 2014-46151 and JP 2014-046151 will be used interchangeably for the sake of clarity.
3 This teaching of Zhang corresponds to the following teaching of Vock: the MMD 900 generates wireless data 910 each time the MMD 900 experiences at least one-fourth of the entire weight (paragraph 0352 of Vock).