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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 29 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 17, and 19-21 are currently amended. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application. The objections to the specification and drawings, being erroneously based on an outdated version of the specification document, has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 have overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19 November 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens et al. (US PGPub No. 2021/0170176, effectively filed 04 December 2019), hereinafter Martens, in view of Moffitt et al. (US PGPub No. 2012/0203316), hereinafter Moffitt, and further in view of Moran et al. (US PGPub No. 2023/0075205, effectively filed 14 January 2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Martens teaches an implantable device (Fig. 2A: implantable stimulator 101) comprising:
a carrier with a first side and a second side (Fig. 2A: substrate 300 with first side 310 and second surface 230),
wherein the first side and the second side are on different surfaces that are less than 5 millimeters apart (par. 0106: “The conformable portion of the foil-like substrate 300 has a maximum thickness of 0.5 millimeter or less, proximate the first 200a, 200b and second 400a, 400b electrodes, the thickness being defined by the first 310 and second surfaces 320”);
a first signal electrode, embedded on the first side (Fig. 2A: electrode 200a on first side 310); a second signal electrode, embedded on the second side (Fig. 2A: electrode 200b on second side 320);
and first and second return/ground electrodes, embedded on the first and second sides, respectively (Fig. 2A: electrodes 400a-400b on first and second sides 310-320; par. 0153: “The electrodes of the second type 400a, 400b are nominally configured to be operated as a return electrode”),
wherein the second return/ground electrode is electrically coupled with the first return/ground electrode such that the electrodes can be activated simultaneously (par. 0096: “one or more electrical interconnections 250, between the pulse generator 500 and the first 200a, 200b and the second 400a, 400b electrodes, for transferring electrical energy as one or more electrical treatment stimulation pulses to the coupled first electrodes 200a, 200b and/or the second electrodes 400a, 400b;” examiner interprets electrodes 400a-400b coupled to the pulse generator via electrical interconnections 250 and configured as an electrical ground to be electrically coupled with one another).
Martens does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second return/ground electrodes are electrically coupled inside the implantable device. However, in an analogous art, Moffitt teaches an implantable device comprising first and second simultaneously activated electrodes on opposite sides of a carrier, wherein the first and second electrodes are electrically coupled using a multiplexer or controllable switches disposed inside the implantable device to make it possible to dynamically change which electrodes are electrically coupled together (Figs. 3A-3D: electrodes 330a and 330b coupled inside device by conductor 360; par. 0058: “the segmented electrodes (or a subset of segmented electrodes) can be coupled to a multiplexer (which is preferably disposed in the lead near the electrodes) or to controllable switches (which are preferably disposed in the lead near the electrodes). The multiplexer or controllable switches can be used to electrically gang segmented electrodes together, but can also be used to change which electrodes are ganged together, if desired”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Martens by electrically coupling the first and second return/ground electrodes inside the implantable device, as taught by Moffitt, in order to make it possible to dynamically change which electrodes are electrically coupled together, as taught by Moffitt.
Martens further does not explicitly teach wherein the return/ground electrodes are configured as reference or body potential electrodes. However, in an analogous art, Moran teaches an implantable device with auxiliary electrodes that can be used as either return/ground electrodes or as reference/body potential electrodes (par. 0387: “any electrode of the auxiliary electrodes 1030 may be operable as a sensing electrode, or a reference or ground electrode (for sensing), or a stimulating electrode (for stimulation), or a return/ground electrode (for stimulation)”), where using reference electrodes for differential sensing provides the advantage of improving the common-mode rejection ratio to reduce noise (par. 0119: “The reference electrode 30E may be used in conjunction with one or more of the sensing/recording electrodes 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D to perform differential cortical signal recording to reduce pickup of irrelevant spurious noise due to common mode rejection (CMR)” and par. 0389: “When the auxiliary electrodes are used as reference/ground electrodes for sensing, they provide the advantage of improving the common-mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of signals recorded from the bottom surface of the implant (the surface that is closer to the cortex after implantation)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the implantable device of the combined reference by configuring the return/ground electrodes as reference/body potential electrodes for differential sensing, as taught by Moran, in order to improve the common-mode rejection ratio and reduce noise, as taught by Moran.
Claim 20 is also rejected over Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran because its method limitations merely broadly recite creating the device taught by the combined reference.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the device of claim 1 as described previously. Martens further teaches wherein: the first signal electrode is aligned with the second signal electrode; and the first body potential electrode is aligned with the second body potential electrode (Fig. 2A: electrodes 200a-200b aligned with each other, electrodes 400a-400b aligned with each other).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the device of claim 1 as described previously. Martens further teaches wherein the carrier comprises at least one of: diamond, ceramics, metal, or organics (suitable polymeric substrate materials listed in par. 0115; examiner notes that most of the listed polymers are organic).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the device of claim 1 as described previously. Martens further teaches further comprising an extension of insulating material beyond a perimeter of the carrier, the insulating material comprising a biocompatible electrically insulating material (Fig. 12B: encapsulation layer 1300 placed beyond a perimeter of substrate 1400; par. 0037: “the encapsulation layer comprises a polymer and/or Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)”), and the extension exposing the first signal electrode, the second signal electrode, the first body potential electrode, and the second body potential electrode (Fig. 12B: electrodes 1220 exposed by encapsulation layer 1300; par. 0419: “such a stimulation electrode 1220 and/or a tissue sensor is preferably not completely covered by an encapsulation layer 1300 and/or an adhesion layer 1500 as a sufficiently high degree of electrical connection or exposure to the implant environment are required for their function”).
Regarding claims 6 and 8-9, the combination teaches the device of claim 1 as described previously. Martens further teaches comprising an integrated circuit (IC) inside the carrier, wherein: the IC is electrically coupled with the first signal electrode, the second signal electrode, the first body potential electrode, and the second body potential electrode (par. 0398: “the substrate 1400 may further comprise one or more electrical or electronic components configured to receive energy when electrical energy is applied to the one or more electrical conductors 1210” and par. 0400: “the one or more components may be an active component, a passive component, an electronic component, an integrated circuit (IC), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)”); but does not explicitly teach wherein the IC includes a power management system electrically coupled with the first body potential electrode, with the second body potential electrode, and with a power transducer configured to receive energy from an external interface unit (EIU) to power the IC, wherein the power transducer includes at least one of: electrodes configured to receive power from the EIU through capacitive coupling; an inductor coil configured to receive power inductively and/or electromagnetically; or an optical power transducer configured to receive power optically, wherein the optical power transducer may be placed inside the carrier and may receive power transmitted by the EIU through the carrier; or further including a communication interface configured to transfer data between the IC and the EIU, the communication interface comprising electrodes, an inductor coil, or an optical power transducer.
However, Moran further teaches a power management system electrically coupled with the electrodes and with a power transducer configured to receive energy from an external interface unit, as well as a communication interface configured to transfer data between the device and the external interface unit (Figs. 7-8: telemetry unit 138 configured to transfer data to handheld device 202; par. 0141: “The digitized signals may be fed into the telemetry module 138 for wirelessly transmitting to an external receiver (or transceiver) outside the body of the patient or mammal for further processing and/or storing/recording”), wherein the power transducer and communication interface includes an inductor coil (Fig. 7: power harvesting module 145 and induction coil 55; par. 0332: “the telemetry unit may use the inductance coil 672 of the power transmitter 670 as the telemetry antenna for transmitting telemetry data”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device of the combined reference with the power management system and power transducer and communication interface of Moran, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (inductive and electrical connection) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the device of claim 9 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein the device is configured to provide a differential stimulus signal between the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode, wherein the differential stimulus signal has a common-mode component equal to a potential on the first body potential electrode and the second body potential electrode (par. 0118: “if the auxiliary electrode 30F is grounded and held at a voltage of zero volts (0V) and a positive voltage (for example +5V) is applied to electrode 30A, while a negative voltage (for example −5V) is applied to electrode 30C, the auxiliary electrode 30F may operate as a current sink with respect to the electrode 30A and as a current source with respect to the electrode 30C;” examiner interprets equal and opposite stimulus signals provided between an electrode pair with a reference/ground electrode held at the common-mode voltage between the signals as a differential stimulus signal), which allows for more efficient focal stimulation due to current steering (par. 0106: “the implants of the present application may be constructed such as to have electrode configurations that may improve ICI performance by electrically directing (steering) the stimulating currents in such a way as to achieve efficient focal electrical stimulation or inhibition of cortical tissues underlying the implant to significantly improve and refine the anatomical resolution of cortical target area stimulation by using such current steering methods”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the combined reference by configuring the device to provide a differential signal between the first and second signal electrodes, as taught by Moran, in order to achieve efficient focal stimulation due to current steering, as taught by Moran.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the device of claim 6 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein the device is configured to sense a differential signal between the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode, wherein the differential signal has a common-mode component equal to a potential on the first body potential electrode and the second body potential electrode (par. 0119: “The reference electrode 30E may be used in conjunction with one or more of the sensing/recording electrodes 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D to perform differential cortical signal recording to reduce pickup of irrelevant spurious noise due to common mode rejection”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the device of claim 11 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein the device further comprises an amplifier configured to amplify the differential signal (Fig. 7: amplifiers 80) and an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the amplified differential signal from an analog domain signal to a digital domain signal (Fig. 7: digitizing module 139), the device further comprising a circuit to communicate the digital domain signal to the EIU (Fig. 7: telemetry module 138; par. 0141: “The digitized signals may be fed into the telemetry module 138 for wirelessly transmitting to an external receiver (or transceiver) outside the body of the patient or mammal for further processing and/or storing/recording”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the device of claim 11 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein the differential signal represents a channel of one of an electroencephalogram, an electrocardiogram, and an electromyogram (par. 0103: “The electrical signals sensed and recorded in this way would be somewhat similar to electrocorticography (Ecog) in which electrodes are placed on the surface of the brain. Ecog signals have been shown to have substantial advantages in SNR in that they can detect focal cortical changes and record higher frequencies than typical EEG recording techniques”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the device of claim 10 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein the device is configured to receive a control signal from the external unit via the communication interface to apply a stimulus signal to the first and second signal electrode (par. 0155: “The processor(s) of the device 202 may telemetrically send control signals to the telemetry module 138 of the ICI 10. When the control signals are received by the processor/controller 140 of the ICI 10 they may initiate a stimulation regime of one or more brain regions of the user/patient by the ICI 10”). Examiner further notes that a digital-to-analog converter and power amplifier are well known in the prior art for programmable circuits providing electrical stimulation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate these elements in the circuity taught by Moran.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the method of claim 20 as described previously. Martens further teaches using a biocompatible electrically insulating first material to create the carrier wherein the first material comprises one or more of carbon, diamond, organics, a polymer, or a ceramic (par. 0090: “The substrate 300 comprises one or more adjacent polymeric substrate layers”);
using a biocompatible electrically conducting second material to create an electrode, wherein the second material comprises one or more of metal, doped carbon, doped diamond, a metal oxide, or a metal nitride (par. 0144: “The electrodes 200, 400 may comprise a conductive material such as gold, platinum, platinum black, TiN, IrO.sub.2, iridium, and/or platinum/iridium alloys and/or oxides”);
performing one of growing, implanting, and depositing to create an electrode (par. 0144: “PCB/metallization techniques may be used to manufacture them on or in the first 310 and/or second 330 surfaces of the one or more polymeric substrate layers”);
and increasing insulation between an electrode on the first side and an electrode on the second side by placing a biocompatible electrically insulating third material beyond a perimeter of the carrier (Fig. 12B: encapsulation layer 1300 placed beyond a perimeter of substrate 1400), the third material exposing the first signal electrode, the second signal electrode, the first body potential electrode, and the second body potential electrode (Fig. 12B: electrodes 1220 exposed by encapsulation layer 1300; par. 0419: “such a stimulation electrode 1220 and/or a tissue sensor is preferably not completely covered by an encapsulation layer 1300 and/or an adhesion layer 1500 as a sufficiently high degree of electrical connection or exposure to the implant environment are required for their function”).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran and further in view of Anderson et al. (US PGPub No. 2007/0150007), hereinafter Anderson.
Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran teaches the device of claim 1 as described previously. Moran further teaches wherein three or more signal electrodes may be arranged in a circle around a central signal electrode (see sensing electrodes 265, 275 in Figs. 24-25) and wherein the device is configured to sense differential signals between pairs of signal electrodes that are electrically coupled with an amplifier (par. 0119: “here are four sensing/recording electrodes 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D. The reference electrode 30E may be used in conjunction with one or more of the sensing/recording electrodes 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D to perform differential cortical signal recording;” Fig. 7: amplifiers 80) but does not specifically teach wherein the circular array of signal electrodes are two or more pairs of lateral-signal electrodes. However, in an analogous art, Anderson teaches an implantable device comprising two or more lateral pairs of electrodes around a central electrode (Figs. 3, 5: electrodes 154; par. 0007: “The electrical signal may also be provided between diametrically opposed electrodes or between electrodes that are not diametrically opposed”) and further teaches that laying out electrodes in such a configuration facilitates effective positioning of the implantable device and allows the electrode coverage area to be altered (par. 0022: “A non-linear arrangement of electrodes may also facilitate effective positioning of an implantable stimulator relative to the tissue to be stimulated. For example, a non-linear electrode array that is circular may provide similar stimulation when positioned anywhere from 0 to 360 degrees. This may facilitate faster implantation by allowing greater latitude in placement of the lead and the electrodes” and par. 0023: “an implantable stimulator with a non-linear arrangement of electrodes may be desirable when it is advantageous to alter the electrode coverage area. For example, the electrode coverage area of concentrically arranged electrodes may provide a different electrode coverage area than a linear arrangement of the same electrodes, which may be desirable depending, for example, on the tissue to be stimulated. Non-linear electrode arrangements may also be particularly suited for stimulating certain tissues, such as when bilateral stimulation is desirable”).
In light of Anderson’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the combined reference by providing additional sensing electrodes around a central sensing electrode as shown in Moran, and to configure the additional electrodes as pairs of lateral signal electrodes, as taught by Anderson, in order to facilitate effective positioning of the implantable device and allow the electrode coverage area to be altered, as taught by Anderson.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran and further in view of Cogan et al. (US Patent No. 8,849,369), hereinafter Cogan.
Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran teaches the device of claim 6 as described previously. Martens does not explicitly teach wherein the IC further comprises a memory configured for long-term recording of a digital signal. However, in an analogous art, Cogan teaches an implantable device for recording and stimulation of brain activity comprising a memory configured for long-term recording of a digital signal (col 9, lines 4-6: “processor (810) may store the digitized sensed signals, or portion thereof, from array (100) in a recording memory”), which allows a processor to transmit brain signals only during the detected onset of a clinically significant electrical brain event (col 9, lines 14-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the device of the combined reference with a memory for long-term recording of a digital signal, as taught by Cogan, in order to transmit signals only during a clinically significant brain event, as taught by Cogan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran and further in view of Hung-Cuong Dinh et al. (US PGPub No. 2022/0338779, effectively filed 09 September 2019), hereinafter Hung-Cuong Dinh.
Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran teaches the device of claim 11 as described previously. The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising a body referencing circuit (BRC) that generates a stable voltage halfway between average voltages of the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode, wherein the BRC applies the stable voltage to the first body potential electrode and the second body potential electrode. However, in an analogous art, Hung-Cuong Dinh teaches a device for measuring EEG that comprises a body referencing circuit that generates a stable voltage halfway between average voltages of the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode, wherein the circuit applies to the stable voltage to a ground electrode (Fig. 11: common-mode rejection circuit 621; par. 0126: “the common-mode rejection circuit 621 is implemented by connecting the ground electrode 701 to a potential corresponding to half the sum of Vm+ and Vm−, so that the zero potential is defined in the same way in the whole circuit. In FIG. 11, it is the midpoint 611 that corresponds to this potential”), which Hung-Cuong Dinh teaches can be used to suppress noise from sources external to the individual (par. 0125: “the ground electrode 701 is used to suppress the noise from the noise sources external to the individual, which are represented by generator 609. The solution for suppressing the noise is a common-mode rejection circuit 621”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the combined reference by incorporating the body referencing circuit of Hung-Cuong Dinh in order to suppress noise from sources external to the individual, as taught by Hung-Cuong Dinh.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran and further in view of Panken et al. (US PGPub No. 2022/0061742, effectively filed 28 August 2020), hereinafter Panken.
Martens in view of Moffitt and Moran teaches the device of claim 13 as described previously. The combination does not teach further comprising a sensor comprising an accelerometer coupled with an amplifier, wherein the amplifier is configured to amplify a sensor signal and to provide the amplified sensor signal to the ADC. However, Panken teaches providing an accelerometer in the implantable device (Fig. 4: motion sensor 416; par. 0117: “motion sensor 416 may include one or more accelerometers configured to detect patient movement”) coupled with sensing and processing circuitry (Fig. 4: sensing circuitry 406, processing circuitry 402), including an amplifier (par. 0104: “sensing circuitry 406 may include one or more filters and amplifiers for filtering and amplifying signals received from one or more of electrodes 418 and/or motion sensor(s) 42”). Panken teaches that the accelerometer can be used for seizure detection and stroke detection (par. 0117: “processing circuitry 402 may employ patient movement information as a part of seizure detection and stroke detection”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an accelerometer in the implantable device of the combined reference, as suggested by Panken, so that it can be used for seizure detection and stroke detection, as taught by Panken.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martens in view of Sun et al. (US PGPub No. 2017/0095176), hereinafter Sun.
For the same reasons laid out in the rejection of claim 1, Martens teaches an implantable device with configurable electrodes comprising: a carrier with a first side and a second side, wherein the first side and the second side are on different surfaces; a first electrode and a second electrode located on the first side; and a third electrode and a fourth electrode located on the second side. Martens does not explicitly teach wherein the electrodes are dynamically configurable to measure differential signals, or further comprising a first switch electrically coupled with the first electrode and the third electrode, wherein the first switch configures the first electrode and the third electrode as signal electrodes when it is in an open position and as body potential electrodes when it is in a closed position; and a second switch, electrically coupled with the second electrode and the fourth electrode, wherein the second switch configures the second electrode and the fourth electrode as signal electrodes when it is in an open position and as body potential electrodes when it is in a closed position; and at least one of an amplifier to measure differential signals or an amplifier to stimulate with differential signals, the amplifier(s) configurable to dynamically connect with at least two of the first electrode, the second electrode, the third electrode, or the fourth electrode.
However, in an analogous art, Sun teaches a carrier with two pairs of opposing electrodes that are dynamically configurable to measure differential signals (Fig. 21: electrodes 2110-2113), and further comprising a first switch electrically coupled with the first electrode and the third electrode, wherein the first switch configures the first electrode and the third electrode as signal electrodes when it is in an open position and as body potential electrodes when it is in a closed position; and a second switch, electrically coupled with the second electrode and the fourth electrode, wherein the second switch configures the second electrode and the fourth electrode as signal electrodes when it is in an open position and as body potential electrodes when it is in a closed position (par. 0071: “Electrodes 2110-2113 are coupled to a switch 2120 that selectively couples electrodes to differential inputs and a reference input of an amplifier 2106. As shown, electrode 2110 can be switched to connect to a positive input of the amplifier 2016 or the reference (REF) input. The opposite electrode 2112 can be switched to connect to a negative input of the amplifier 2106 or the reference input. Thus, the electrodes 2110, 2112 can be coupled together to serve as a reference, or coupled to opposing amplifier inputs, as preferred based on a scalp electric field direction”);
and at least one of an amplifier to measure differential signals or an amplifier to stimulate with differential signals, the amplifier(s) configurable to dynamically connect with at least two of the first electrode, the second electrode, the third electrode, or the fourth electrode (Fig. 21: amplifier 2106).
Sun further teaches that such a configuration for differentially sensing biological signals provides a superior signal-to-noise ratio (see corresponding Fig. 10 and par. 0055: “the differential input follows a maximum gradient of skin bio-potential for superior signal-to-noise ratio”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Martens by making the electrodes dynamically configurable to measure differential signals, namely, by including a switching functionality that selectively couples electrode pairs to the differential inputs or to the reference input of an amplifier, as taught by Sun, in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, as taught by Sun.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, in light of the amendments to these claims, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moffitt (for claims 1 and 20), Anderson (for claims 3 and 17), and Sun (for claim 19). As described previously, Moffitt teaches electrically coupling a pair of electrodes inside an implantable device, Anderson teaches an arrangement of electrodes in a circle around a central electrode, and Sun teaches a switching system for configuring two pairs of electrodes alternately as signal or body potential electrodes.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the close filing dates of prior art reference Martens and the instant application indicates non-obviousness due to simultaneous independent development, it is noted that subject matter that is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 can also be used to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see MPEP 2141.01).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-11, 13, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 DAVINA E LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM (ET).
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, JOANNE M RODDEN can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/D.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights