DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 10/14/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2025, 05/20/2024, 10/14/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “a first alternating signal” and “a second alternating signal” with multiple subsequent recitations of “the first signal” and “the second signal” respectively. Each of these subsequent recitations should read “the first alternating signal” and “the second alternating signal” respectively.
Claims 17-18 each recite “the first signal” and “the second signal” and should be corrected in the same manner as stated above.
Claim 17 line 1 should read “The method according to claim 16, further comprising: setting the first variable…” rather than using a “wherein” clause as claim 17 recites further method steps.
Claim 19 lines 1-2: “wherein the biopotential signal produced by the person is an electromyography (EMG) or an electroencephalography (EEG) or an electrocardiography (ECG) signal.” should read “wherein the biopotential signal is an electromyography (EMG) or an electroencephalography (EEG) or an electrocardiography (ECG) signal.” to maximize clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a component representative of the amplitude of said first alternating signal" and “a component representative of the amplitude of said second alternating signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms should each read “an amplitude”. Claims 2-15 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a first circuitry” and “a fourth circuitry”. It is unclear if the scope of the claim requires the presence of four distinct circuits or two circuits. The positive recitation of only two circuitries, but labeling the ‘second’ circuitry claimed as “a fourth circuitry” introduces indefiniteness to the scope of the claim. The scope of claim 1 is interpreted as comprising two circuitries. Claims 2-15 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the signal comprising at least a component representative of the amplitude of said first alternating signal and the signal comprising a component representative of the amplitude of said second alternating signal is the output signal of said first circuitry” (emphasis added). The emphasized limitations are previously recited in claim 1, thus should each read “the component …”.
Claims 7 and 10 each recite the limitation "the second circuitry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms will be interpreted to read “a second circuitry” or alternatively need to be amended to be dependent from claim 4.
Claims 7 and 11 each recite the limitation "the third circuitry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms will be interpreted to read “a third circuitry” or alternatively need to be amended to be dependent from claim 4.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the amplitude of the first signal” and “the amplitude of the second signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These terms should each read “an amplitude”. Claims 17-20 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the fully operational range of the respective variable controlled resistance load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation will be interpreted to read “a fully operational range of the respective variable controlled resistance load”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1-20, the Kim (U.S. PGPub No. 20110237904), Tong (U.S. PGPub No. 2003/0171661), Hwang (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0327815) references fail to teach a first variable controlled resistant load, a second variable controlled resistance load, first and second signal generators, measuring the amplitude of said first and second signals, and adjusting the resistances of the first and second variable controlled resistance loads as a function of the change in amplitude of said first and second signals and adjusting the variable controlled gain as a function of a change in amplitude of the measured first and second signals as respectively claimed in claims 1 and 16. Kim teaches a similar device and method comprising a signal generator 120 and variable controlled impedance loads 140 (see Figs 3a-3c), but fails to teach all of the elements of the claims as stated above. The Tong and Hwang references teach similar systems and methods for sensing biopotential signals but fail to cure any of the above noted deficiencies. Any such combination of the prior art to arrive at any of claims 1-20 would necessarily rely on impermissible hindsight benefit using information gleaned from the applicant’s specification. No other pertinent prior art reference were found that would overcome the above deficiencies. Therefore, there is no motivation (either in these references or elsewhere in the art) for making such specific and significant modifications thereto to arrive at claim(s) 1-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794