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 .
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, 4-6, 8-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0191728 Shennib et al., hereinafter “Shennib”, in view of US 2018/0184920 Robinovich et al., hereinafter “Robinovich”, further in view of WO 2017/071785 Chmelik et al., hereinafter “Chmelik” (all cited previously), further in view of CN 109069121 Hamelmann et al., hereinafter “Hamelmann”.
Regarding claim 1, Shennib discloses a fetal heart rate monitoring device for monitoring a heart rate of a fetus (Abstract and Figure 2, element 10), the device comprising: a carrier suitable for being attached to a human body (Figure 1, element 10 is a patch, the carrier is technically element 55 which is the adhesive); at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor mounted on the carrier and configured for providing an output signal (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22 are mounted on carrier 55); at least one reference sensor for providing a reference signal for filtering the output signal to enable identifying a fetal heartrate therefrom (Para 28 and 56); an actuator arrangement distributed in an area around the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Figure 2, elements 34; see also Para 55 and 61; multiple indicators can be present. The actuators are the transducer indicators that is shown to be around element 22 in Figure 2), wherein each actuator is configured for providing a haptic signal to the human body (Para 55 discloses vibrating element); and a controller (Figure 2, element 32) communicatively connected to the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor for receiving the output signal (Para 46 and 52), wherein the controller is arranged for controlling each of the plurality of actuators provide a haptic feedback signal to the human body dependent on the output signal (Para 55; the indicator signal works off of the monitored fetal heart rate); wherein the area around the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor comprises an n number of sectors (As shown in Figure 2, ECG sensor 22 has an area surrounding it that can be compartmentalized into sectors), where n is an integer having a value of at least two (As shown in Figure 2, there are multiple sectors around ECG 22; any area surrounding any object can be made of sectors, any number of sectors, one can divide an area around an object into any number of sectors from 1-n).
Shennib does not disclose determining a signal strength from the output signal received by the controller, and providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller.
However, Robinovich discloses a sensing device (Abstract) and teaches determining a signal strength from the output signal received by the controller, and providing the feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 115-116, and 119-121; Examiner notes that while Robinovich does not disclosed a haptic feedback signal, that is not why it’s being relied on. This reference is used to simply teach that based on a signal strength a feedback signal can be provided. Shennib discloses the haptic feedback signal, therefore examiner just needed Robinovich to teach a feedback signal in response to signal strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Shennib does not disclose an actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators mounted on the carrier and distributed in an area around the at least one electrocardiographic sensor; and wherein the actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators comprises at least n actuators, such that at least one actuator is located in each sector of the n number of sectors.
However, Chmelik discloses a wearable apparatus that includes vibrating elements (Abstract) and teaches an actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators mounted on the carrier (Figure 1, at least two actuators/vibrating elements 2 are mounted in carrier 3) and distributed in an area around the at least one electrocardiographic sensor (Figure 1, the two actuators 2 are mounted in an area surrounding electrode 1); and wherein the actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators comprises at least n actuators (Figure 1, element 2, n is at least 2), such that at least one actuator is located in each sector of the n number of sectors (See Figure 1, element 1 is a sensor, elements 2 are vibrating elements that are in two different sectors, up and down, of the sensor 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed actuators in n number of sectors as taught by Chmelik, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow vibrations to target different areas on the human body (Chmelik; Page 6, lines 25-35 and Page 7, lines 1-3).
Shennib does not disclose providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller, for providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body.
However, Hamelmann discloses a system for fetal heart rate monitoring (Para 10) and teaches providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 14, 47, and 52; signal quality can be indicated using LED or tactile feedback), for providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body (Para 14 and 47; tactile feedback can be used in instructing the user on the direction in which the device can be moved to properly center the transducer for optimal optical fetal heart rate thereby indicating the location of the heart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus as taught by Hamelmann, in the invention of Shennib, in order to detect optimal fetal heart rate (Hamelmann; Para 47).
Regarding claim 4, Shennib discloses the controller is configured for: individually controlling each actuator of the plurality of actuators for providing the haptic feedback signal (Figure 2, elements 34; see also Para 55 and 61; multiple indicators can be present).
Shennib does not disclose selectively adapting for each respective actuator, of the plurality of actuators, an intensity of the haptic feedback signal provided via the actuator dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller.
However, Robinovich teaches selectively adapting for each respective actuator, of the plurality of actuators, an intensity of the haptic feedback signal provided via the actuator dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 115 and 119-121; based on the signal, the haptic vibrators can stimulate a specific motion to allow the user to recognize that the device needs to be moved in a specific direction, thereby emitting different intensities based on position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 5, Shennib discloses a fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22).
Shennib does not disclose during a relative motion of the carrier on and across the human body, the controller receives one or more signal samples of the output signal and is configured for determining a signal strength from each of the signal samples, and wherein the controller is configured for providing, based on the signal strength from each of the signal samples and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal received from the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor.
However, Robinovich teaches during a relative motion of the carrier on and across the human body (Para 119-121), the controller receives one or more signal samples of the output signal and is configured for determining a signal strength from each of the signal samples (Para 119-121), and wherein the controller is configured for providing, based on the signal strength from each of the signal samples and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 6, Shennib discloses the device further comprises: one or more auxiliary sensors for providing auxiliary output signals (Para 49 and 69); a fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22).
Shennib does not disclose wherein the controller is configured for: determining an auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals, and providing, based on the auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal.
However, Robinovich teaches the controller is configured for: determining an auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals, and providing, based on the auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 8, Shennib discloses indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body (Para 62 discloses the need to move the patch when the fetus has moved, therefore needing to relocate to the position of the fetus heart).
Shennib does not disclose the controller is configured for providing, based on the signal strength determined by the controller, an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators.
However, Robinovich teaches the controller is configured for providing, based on the signal strength determined by the controller, an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 9, Shennib discloses the carrier comprises a flat bendable or flexible substrate material (Figure 2, element 10 and 55; see also Para 29 and 48).
Regarding claim 10, Shennib discloses the carrier (Figure 2, element 55) is characterized by at least one of the group consisting of: the carrier is arranged for being adhered to a skin of the human body (Para 48); the carrier is provided by a patch for attachment to the human body (Para 48); the carrier is provided by a belt or cloth that may be attached around an abdominal region of the human body; and the carrier is arranged for supporting the fetal electrocardiographic sensor so as to be located on the human body on a belly thereof (Figure 2, elements 20-22, see also Figure 1, patch on belly 2).
Regarding claim 11, Shennib discloses the device includes printed electronics providing one or more of the group consisting of: the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor, the reference sensor, the actuator arrangement, the one or more the actuators of the actuator arrangement, the one or more electrical connections of the device, and one or more electrodes of the device (Figure 2 shows all the printed electronics, including the sensors 20-22, the actuator 34, and the electrical connections, like 41, 42, 43, and 45; see also Para 48).
Regarding claim 12, Shennib discloses the device further comprises at least one ground electrode located between at least one of the fetal electrocardiographic sensors and the reference sensor (Para 28).
Regarding claim 13, Shennib discloses a method of controlling a fetal heart rate monitoring device for monitoring a heart rate of a fetus located inside a human body (Abstract and Claim 33), wherein the device comprises a controller (Figure 2, element 32), at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor configured for providing an output signal to the controller (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22), at least one reference sensor for providing a reference signal for filtering the output signal (Para 28 and 56), and an actuator arrangement (Para 55 discloses multiple indicators, vibrating elements) distributed in an area around the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (See Figure 2, element 34 is around an area of sensor 22), wherein each actuator is configured for providing a haptic signal to the human body (Figure 2, elements 34; see also Para 55 and 61; multiple indicators can be present. The actuators are the transducer indicators that is shown to be around element 22 in Figure 2); wherein the method comprises: receiving, by the controller, the output signal from the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 46 and 49); and providing, by controlling each of the plurality of actuators, a haptic feedback signal to the human body dependent on the output signal received by the controller (Para 55; the indicator signal works off of the monitored fetal heart rate); wherein the area around the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor comprises an n number of sectors (As shown in Figure 2, ECG sensor 22 has an area surrounding it that can be compartmentalized into sectors), where n is an integer having a value of at least two (As shown in Figure 2, there are multiple sectors around ECG 22; any area surrounding any object can be made of sectors, any number of sectors, one can divide an area around an object into any number of sectors from 1-n).
Shennib does not disclose determining a signal strength from the output signal received by the controller, and providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller.
However, Robinovich discloses a sensing device (Abstract) and teaches determining a signal strength from the output signal received by the controller, and providing the feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 115-116, and 119-121; Examiner notes that while Robinovich does not disclosed a haptic feedback signal, that is not why it’s being relied on. This reference is used to simply teach that based on a signal strength a feedback signal can be provided. Shennib discloses the haptic feedback signal, therefore examiner just needed Robinovich to teach a feedback signal in response to signal strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Shennib does not disclose an actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators distributed in an area around the at least one electrocardiographic sensor; and wherein the actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators comprises at least n actuators, such that at least one actuator is located in each sector of the n number of sectors.
However, Chmelik discloses a wearable apparatus that includes vibrating elements (Abstract) and teaches an actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators (Figure 1, at least two actuators/vibrating elements 2) and distributed in an area around the at least one electrocardiographic sensor (Figure 1, the two actuators 2 are mounted in an area surrounding electrode 1); and wherein the actuator arrangement comprising a plurality of actuators comprises at least n actuators (Figure 1, element 2, n is at least 2), such that at least one actuator is located in each sector of the n number of sectors (See Figure 1, element 1 is a sensor, elements 2 are vibrating elements that are in two different sectors, up and down, of the sensor 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed actuators in n number of sectors as taught by Chmelik, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow vibrations to target different areas on the human body (Chmelik; Page 6, lines 25-35 and Page 7, lines 1-3).
Shennib does not disclose providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller, for providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body.
However, Hamelmann discloses a system for fetal heart rate monitoring (Para 10) and teaches providing the haptic feedback signal dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 14, 47, and 52; signal quality can be indicated using LED or tactile feedback), for providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body (Para 14 and 47; tactile feedback can be used in instructing the user on the direction in which the device can be moved to properly center the transducer for optimal optical fetal heart rate thereby indicating the location of the heart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed providing an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus as taught by Hamelmann, in the invention of Shennib, in order to detect optimal fetal heart rate (Hamelmann; Para 47).
Regarding claim 14, Shennib discloses obtaining, by the controller, at least one of: one or more signal samples of the output signal of the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 49 and 56), or one or more signal samples of auxiliary output signals provided by auxiliary sensors (Para 49 and 69); at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22)
Shennib does not disclose determining, by the controller, one or more signals strengths from the signal samples; and providing, by the controller, based on the signal strengths determined by the controller and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing a signal strength of the output signal received from the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor.
However, Robinovich teaches determining, by the controller, one or more signals strengths from the signal samples (Para 115-16 and 119-121); and providing, by the controller, based on the signal strengths determined by the controller and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators (Para 119-121), an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing a signal strength of the output signal (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 15, Shennib discloses obtaining, by the controller, at least one of: one or more signal samples of the output signal of the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 49 and 56), or one or more signal samples of auxiliary output signals provided by auxiliary sensors (Para 49 and 69); indicator of an expected relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body (Para 62 discloses the need to move the patch when the fetus has moved, therefore needing to relocate to the position of the fetus heart).
Shennib does not disclose determining, by the controller, one or more signals strengths from the signal samples; and providing an indication of the determined expected relative location in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators.
However, Robinovich teaches determining, by the controller, one or more signals strengths from the signal samples (Para 119-121); and providing an indication of the determined expected relative location in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 21, Shennib discloses the controller (Figure 2, element 32) is configured for providing, based on the auxiliary signal strengths determined by the controller, an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators (Para 55; the indicators can be used to indicate fetal heart rate via a vibrating element).
Regarding claim 22, Shennib discloses n is equal to eight (As shown in Figure 2, there can be 8 sectors around element 22, in fact there can be any number of sectors from 1-n).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0191728 Shennib et al., hereinafter “Shennib”, in view of US 2018/0184920 Robinovich et al., hereinafter “Robinovich”, further in view of WO 2017/071785 Chmelik et al., hereinafter “Chmelik”, further in view of CN 109069121 Hamelmann et al., hereinafter “Hamelmann”, further in view of WO 2018/134844 Jha et al., hereinafter “Jha” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 2, Shennib discloses the controller (Figure 2, element 32).
Shennib does not disclose determining a heart rate frequency based on the output signal received by the controller, and for providing the haptic feedback signal as a periodic signal having a periodicity corresponding to the determined heart rate frequency.
However, Jha discloses a fetal heart monitoring device (Abstract) and teaches determining a heart rate frequency based on the output signal received by the controller, and for providing the haptic feedback signal as a periodic signal having a periodicity corresponding to the determined heart rate frequency (Page 19, lines 22-27 and Page 20, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on heart rate frequency as taught by Jha, in the invention of Shennib, in order to mimic the heart rate frequency that was measured (Jha; Page 19, lines 22-27 and Page 20, lines 1-15).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0191728 Shennib et al., hereinafter “Shennib”, in view of US 2018/0184920 Robinovich et al., hereinafter “Robinovich”, further in view of WO 2017/071785 Chmelik et al., hereinafter “Chmelik”, further in view of CN 109069121 Hamelmann et al., hereinafter “Hamelmann”, further in view of US 2016/0310062 Larson et al., hereinafter “Larson” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 17, Shennib discloses the controller is configured for individually controlling each actuator of the plurality of actuators for providing the haptic feedback signal (Para 54-55).
Shennib does not disclose selectively adapting for each respective actuator, of the plurality of actuators, an intensity of the haptic feedback signal provided via the actuator dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller.
However, Larson discloses a sensor-based device for a woman/fetus (Abstract) and teaches selectively adapting for each respective actuator, of the plurality of actuators, an intensity of the haptic feedback signal provided via the actuator dependent on the signal strength determined by the controller (Para 81; based on the signal, i.e. severity of the alert, the haptic feedback may be modulated to different strengths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback modulation as taught by Larson, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to be alerted based on the signal received (Larson; Para 81).
Regarding claim 18, Shennib discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Shennib does not disclose during a relative motion of the carrier on and across the human body, the controller receives one or more signal samples of the output signal and is configured for determining a signal strength from each of the signal samples, and wherein the method comprises, providing, by the controller and based on the signal strength from each of the signal samples and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal received from the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor.
However, Robinovich teaches during a relative motion of the carrier on and across the human body, the controller receives one or more signal samples of the output signal and is configured for determining a signal strength from each of the signal samples, and wherein the method comprises, providing, by the controller and based on the signal strength from each of the signal samples and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal received from the at least one fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 115-116 and 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 19, Shennib discloses the fetal heart rate monitoring device further comprises: one or more auxiliary sensors for providing auxiliary output signals (Para 49 and 69); a fetal electrocardiographic sensor (Para 46 and 49; see also Figure 2, electrodes 20-22).
Shennib does not disclose wherein the controller is configured for: determining an auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals, and providing, based on the auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal.
However, Robinovich teaches the controller is configured for: determining an auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals, and providing, based on the auxiliary signal strength from each of the auxiliary output signals and by selectively controlling one or more of the actuators, an indication of a direction in which a relative location of the carrier on the human body is to be changed for increasing the signal strength of the output signal (Para 119-121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed haptic feedback based on signal strength as taught by Robinovich, in the invention of Shennib, in order to allow the user to adjust the device for a better signal (Robinovich; Para 119-121).
Regarding claim 20, Shennib discloses based on the auxiliary signal strengths determined by the controller, an indication of a relative location of the heart of the fetus in the human body by selectively controlling the haptic signal of one or more of the actuators (Para 55; the indicators can be used to indicate fetal heart rate via a vibrating element).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Examiner has found references that disclose the device of claim 1 that includes a carrier that attaches to a human body that comprises an ECG sensor, a reference sensor, an actuator, and a controller that controls the actuator based on the ECG signals. However, examiner has not found any references in fetal heart monitoring that includes four actuators positioned on the carrier in four different quadrants around the ECG sensor that stimulate the user. This is important to the invention as the location of the actuators provide the necessary stimuli to measure the fetal heart rate. For this reason, claim 7 is objected to as allowable.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Refer to rejections above for the rejection of all the amended claims and arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796