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 Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8: –and– should be inserted after “first plate”;
Claim 1, line 16: –is– should be inserted before “coupled”;
Claim 16, line 3: “a patient” should be replaced with –the patient–;
Claim 16, line 11: –and– should be inserted after “first plate”;
Claim 16: the recitations of “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)” should be deleted;
Claim 16, line 16: “the bottom layer” should be replaced with –a bottom layer–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Monitoring unit in claim 10 because it uses a generic placeholder (i.e., unit) that is coupled with functional language (i.e., monitoring and “receives information regarding a position of the patient”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Paragraph [0052] discloses a variety of monitoring systems, but the specification does not clarify whether “monitoring unit” is the same as “monitoring system”. Additionally, ¶ [0052] does not disclose any structure associated with the monitoring systems. Therefore, the specification does not describe corresponding structure, so the limitation is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation of a system configured to be used for monitoring.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10, 15, and 16 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 10 recites “the monitoring unit receives information regarding a position of the patient on the patient monitoring sensor pad comprises an indication…” in lines 1-3. The recitation is grammatically awkward, and it is unclear what comprises the information. For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “the monitoring unit receives information regarding a position of the patient on the patient monitoring sensor pad, wherein the information comprises an indication…”
Claim 15 recites “The patient monitoring sensor pad of claim 1, further comprising a mattress positioned atop the bed frame such that the pad is positioned between the mattress and the bed frame” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether the mattress, the bed frame, and the pad are different elements. The claim indicates that the pad comprises the mattress and the bed frame. However, it also indicates that the pad is between the mattress and the bed frame, which indicates that they are different elements. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to be “The patient monitoring sensor pad of claim 1, wherein the pad is configured to be positioned atop a bed frame and between the bed frame and a mattress.
Claim 15 recites “the bed frame” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite a bed frame.
Claim 16 recites “the zone of conductivity of the first plate” in line 13 and “the zone of conductivity of the second plate” in line 14. Claim 16 also recites “each of the first flexible plate and second flexible plate comprises zones of conductivity” in lines 6-7, which indicates that each of the first and second flexible plates have multiple zones of conductivity. It is unclear which of the plurality of zones of conductivity are referred to by the “the zone of conductivity” in lines 13 and 14. For the purposes of examination, the recitations in lines 13 and 14 will be interpreted to be “the zones of conductivity of the first plate” and “the zones of conductivity of the second plate”.
Claim 16 recites “the internal cavity comprises… an aperture” in lines 17-18. It is unclear how a cavity comprises an aperture. A cavity is not understood to have structure which corresponds to an aperture. For the purposes of examination, the neck portion will comprise the aperture.
Claim limitation “monitoring unit” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification is devoid of any structure, material, or acts for performing the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-9, 11-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0092103 A1 (Williams ‘103) (cited by Applicant) in view of US 2017/0209076 A1 (Williams ‘076) (previously cited), US 5,796,059 (Boon) (previously cited), US 2019/0049322 A1 (James), and US 7,924,163 B1 (Long) (previously cited)
With regards to claims 1 and 16, Williams ‘103 teaches a method of using a patient monitoring sensor pad (Fig. 2B and ¶ [0023] depicts a method of using and positioning an under-mattress patient monitoring sensor pad 100; Fig. 2A and ¶ [0023] depict a patient monitoring sensor pad 100) comprising: positioning the patient monitoring sensor pad atop a bed frame (Fig. 2B depicts the sensor pad 100 atop a bed frame), the patient monitoring sensor pad comprising: a flexible first plate with conductive material printed thereon (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0024] depict a contact plate 113 formed of a flexible material with electrically conductive material printed on the contact plate); a flexible second plate with conductive material printed thereon (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0024] depict a contact plate 115 formed of a flexible material with electrically conductive material printed on the contact plate), wherein each of the first flexible plate and second flexible plate comprises zones of conductivity (¶ [0008] depict the first and second flexible plate comprising zones of conductivity; ¶ [0029] and Figs. 6-7 depict patterns of conductive material 435 and 535 on sensor plates 113 and 115); a sponge layer (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0024] depict soft sponge layer 114); wherein the zones of conductivity of the first plate are configured to make physical and electrical contact with the zones of conductivity of the second plate when a patient sits or lies on the patient monitoring sensor pad (¶¶ [0008], [0024] depicts the layer 114 may have openings extending therethrough to permit the contact plates 113 and 115 to contact one another through the openings when a force is applied to the pad, such as when a patient lays on the mattress); a bottom layer below the second plate (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0024] depicts an outer most layer 112 formed of PVC), the bottom layer being more rigid than the first and second plates (¶ [0026] depicts the layer 112 being rigid compared to the detection layers 113, 114, 115); and a neck portion extending from the bottom layer (Fig. 2A depicts a neck portion extending from layers 112 and 111).
Williams ‘103 is silent with regards to whether sponge layer is made of foam.
In the same field of endeavor of sensor pads, Williams ‘076 teaches a central layer being formed of foam or sponge (¶ [0018] depicts a central layer being made of sponge or foam, wherein holes through the central layer provide a conduit through which the inner layers 115 can contact one another when a force is applied to the bed pad 105, such as when a patient sits on or lays on the bed pad 105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sponge material of the sponge layer of Williams ‘103 with the foam material as taught by Williams ‘076. Because both elements are capable of allowing for conductive materials to make contact through a layer when a patient sits or lies on the bed monitoring pad, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the foam layer is an electrically conductive foam and wherein an electrical resistance of the electrically-conductive foam varies as a function of an amount of force applied to the electrically conductive foam.
In the same field of endeavor of patient monitoring pads, Boon teaches a foam layer is an electrically conductive foam and wherein an electrical resistance of the electrically-conductive foam varies as a function of an amount of force applied to the electrically conductive foam (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, lines 25-58 depict a resilient conductor 16 being a foam that is a variable resistor that responds to the pressure being applied, wherein more pressure that is applied, the more the foam condenses and the lower its resistive value). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam layer of the above combination such that it is an electrically conductive foam as taught by Boon. The motivation would have been to allow for a more accurate determination of the different weights that are applied to the pad (see Col. 3, lines 45-58).
The above combination is silent regarding whether the foam layer has a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible first plate and a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible second plate.
In the same field of endeavor of patient monitoring pads, James teaches a foam layer that has a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible first plate and a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible second plate (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0058] depict a foam layer between electrically conductive sheets 18, 20, wherein Fig. 1 depicts the foam layer having a larger planar size than a planar size of the conductive sheets 18, 20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam layer of the above combination to incorporate that it has a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible first plate and a larger planar size than a planar size of the flexible second plate as taught by James. Because both foam sizes are capable of being used for a patient monitoring pad, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally or alternatively, like Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) as cited in MPEP 2144.04 (IV), the above limitation amounts to a change in relative dimension that would not have resulted in a device that performs differently than the prior art device. Therefore, the difference in relative dimensions is obvious in view of the above combination.
The above combination is silent with regards to the neck portion comprising an internal cavity, wherein the internal cavity comprises at least one electrical contact and coupled to an aperture, the aperture configured to be opened and closed, wherein the method comprises coupling the bed pad to a monitoring system via the electrical contact within the internal cavity of the neck portion.
In the same field of bed pads, Long teaches a neck portion comprising an internal cavity (Fig. 4B depicts a pocket or sleeve 530 comprising an internal cavity), wherein the internal cavity comprises at least one electrical contact and coupled to an aperture (Fig. 4B depicts a wire extending from the pocket or sleeve 530), the aperture configured to be opened and closed (Fig. 4B and Col. 5, lines 15-20 depict a pocket or sleeve 530 comprising an aperture configured to be closed with a flap 540 and secured with tamper proof clips 550). Long further teaches coupling the bed pad to a monitoring system via the electrical contact within the internal cavity of the neck portion (Fig. 4B and Col. 5, lines 15-20 depict connecting the wire to a wire connector 520 of a transmitter 500). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the neck portion of the above combination to incorporate an internal cavity, wherein the internal cavity comprises at least one electrical contact and an aperture, the aperture configured to be opened and closed via a fastening member, and coupling the bed pad to a monitoring system via the electrical contact within the internal cavity of the neck portion as taught by Long. The motivation would have been to (A) provide a mechanism for reversibly sealing elements within the pad and (B) provide a connector for connecting the elements within the pad to other units.
With regards to claim 2, Williams ‘103 further teaches a bottom layer is polyvinyl chloride (¶ [0021] teaches top and bottom layers formed of polyvinyl chloride).
With regards to claim 3, Williams ‘103 further teaches a plastic layer between the bottom layer and the second plate (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0024] depict a plastic plate 220 and bottom plastic plate 125 separating bottom layer 112 and contact plates 115).
With regards to claim 4, Williams ‘103 further teaches a top-most layer above the first plate (Fig. 2A depicts a top outermost layer 111).
With regards to claim 5, Williams ‘103 further teaches the top-most layer is polyvinyl chloride (¶ [0021] teaches top and bottom layers formed of polyvinyl chloride).
With regards to claim 6, Williams ‘103 further teaches the neck portion is configured to extend from the top-most layer (Fig. 2A depicts a neck portion extending from top outer most layer 111).
With regards to claim 7, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the internal cavity further comprises a control chip and a battery.
In the same field of endeavor of patient monitoring pads, Long teaches a transmitter unit in an internal cavity of a neck portion (Fig. 4B), wherein the transmitter unit comprises a control chip and a battery (Fig. 10 and Col. 5, lines 45-67 depict a circuit diagram of a wireless pad transmitter comprising a microcontroller U2 and a battery BT1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the internal cavity of the above combination to incorporate a transmitter unit comprising a control chip and a battery as taught by Long. The motivation would have been to provide the circuitry components for monitoring the conditions of the pad (see Col. 5, lines 51-67 of Long).
With regards to claim 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the control chip comprises an alarm feature (Col. 5, lines 51-67 of Long teaches the microcontroller U2 monitors the conditions of the pad and generates an alarm)
With regards to claim 9, the above combination teaches or suggests the electrical resistance of the electrically conductive foam decreases as an amount of force on the foam increases and increases as an amount of force on the foam decreases (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, lines 25-58 of Boon depict a resilient conductor 16 being a foam that is a variable resistor that responds to the pressure being applied, wherein more pressure that is applied, the more the foam condenses and the lower its resistive value).
With regards to claim 11, the above combination teaches or suggests the control chip further comprises a control feature (Col. 5, line 51 to Col. 6, line 12 of Long teaches the microcontroller U2 generates an alarm, which is then sent to a remote monitor; also see Col. 8, lines 2-11 with regards to the alarm).
With regards to claim 12, the above combination teaches or suggests the at least one electrical contact is an elongated wire (Fig. 4B of Long depicts a wire extending from the pocket or sleeve 530).
The above combination is silent with regards to whether the at least one electrical contact is an elongated wire in electrical contact with the zones of conductivity
In the same field of endeavor of sensor pads, Williams ‘076 teaches at least one electrical contact is an elongated wire in electrical contact with the zones of conductivity (Fig. 4 and ¶ [0025] of Williams ‘076 depict a cable 405 connected to the one or more electrical interfaces of the sensor pad). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongated wire of the above combination to incorporate that it is in electrical contact with the zones of conductivity as taught by Williams ‘076. The motivation would have been to provide a connection such that the signals from the zones can be analyzed).
With regards to claim 15, Williams ‘103 further teaches a mattress positioned atop the bed frame such that the pad is positioned between the mattress and the bed frame (Fig. 2B and ¶ [0023] depicts the under-mattress pad 100 positioned atop a bed frame).
With regards to claim 17, Williams ‘103 further teaches positioning a mattress atop the bed frame such that the pad is positioned between the mattress and the bed frame (Fig. 2B and ¶ [0023] depicts the under-mattress pad 100 positioned atop a bed frame and below a mattress).
With regards to claim 18, the above combination is silent with regards to positioning a mattress between the bed frame and the patient monitoring sensor pad such that the pad is positioned atop the mattress.
Williams ‘103 teaches a conventional patient monitoring sensor pad, wherein a mattress is positioned between the bed frame and the bed pad such that the pad is positioned atop the mattress (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the position of the pad of the above combination to incorporate that it is atop the bed mattress as taught by Fig. 1B of Williams ‘103. Because both positions are capable of being used for monitoring a patient (¶ [0020] and ¶ [0023] of Williams ‘103), It would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to claim 19, the above combination teaches or suggests the electrical resistance of the electrically conductive foam decreases as an amount of force on the foam increases and increases as an amount of force on the foam decreases (Fig. 2 and Col. 3, lines 25-58 of Boon depict a resilient conductor 16 being a foam that is a variable resistor that responds to the pressure being applied, wherein more pressure that is applied, the more the foam condenses and the lower its resistive value).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams ‘103 in view of Williams ‘076, Boon, James, and Long, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2019/0335913 A1 (Tsern).
With regards to claim 10, the above combination is silent regarding whether the monitoring unit receives information regarding a position of the patient on the patient monitoring sensor pad comprises an indication of hypermovement, an indication of lack of movement, or an indication of proximity to an edge of the patient monitoring sensor pad.
In the same field of endeavor of monitoring a mattress, Tsern teaches a controller providing information regarding the position of the patient on a patient monitoring sensor pad, wherein the information comprises an indication of hypermovement, an indication of lack of movement, or an indication of proximity to an edge of the patient monitoring sensor pad (¶ [0038] discloses the controller may determine that the user has fallen asleep by monitoring both when the pressure sensor indicates the user lies on the sleep surface, and by monitoring when the pressure sensor indicates a relatively constant pressure, indicating a lack of movement on the part of the user, or alternatively monitoring the output of a motion sensor located in the bed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that a controller which provides information regarding the position of the patient on the patient monitoring sensor pad, wherein the information comprises an indication of hypermovement, an indication of lack of movement, or an indication of proximity to an edge of the patient monitoring sensor pad as taught by Tsern. The motivation would have been to provide a more complete diagnostic analysis of the patient.
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections
In view of the claim amendments filed 12/15/2025, the drawing objections were withdrawn.
Claim Objections
There are new grounds of claim objections.
35 U.S.C. §112(b)
There are new grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) necessitated by the claim amendments filed 12/15/2025.
Applicant did not respond to the rejections of claim 16 for reciting “the internal cavity comprises… an aperture” and claim 15 for reciting “The patient monitoring sensor pad of claim 1, further comprising a mattress positioned atop the bed frame such that the pad is positioned between the mattress and the bed frame”. The examiner did not find a reason to withdraw the rejections, so the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) were maintained.
35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 12/15/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/16/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2019/0049322 A1 (James). See the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103. Therefore, the previously applied rejection has been modified to incorporate the teachings of James.
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 SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791