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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims Accounting
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/12/2026, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 08/12/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 14-15, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the sensor head comprising,” in line 9. This should read “the sensor head comprising:”.
Claim 11 recites “making, via processor and the sensor head” in line 25. This should read “making, via the processor and the sensor head”.
Claim 11 recites “detecting, via processor” in line 29. This should read “detecting, via the processor”.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claim 1 recites the limitation “a value for one of the first of the plurality of oximetry readings” in line 11. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to indicate one of the first few values of the plurality of first oximetry readings or a value for one of the plurality of first oximetry readings. A similar recitation is present in claim 11, line 21. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claims limitations are interpreted as “a value for one of the plurality of first oximetry readings”.
Further regarding claims 1 and 11, claim 1 recites the limitation “retrieving from memory of the oximetry system one of the plurality of first oximetry readings” in lines 20-21. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the claim has not previously recited storing one of the plurality of first oximetry readings in the memory. Rather, the claim recites storing “a value for one of the first of the plurality of oximetry readings” in line 11 of claim 1. A similar recitation is present in claim 11, line 31. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the storing limitation is interpreted as described above and the retrieving limitation is interpreted as “retrieving from memory of the oximetry system a value for one of the plurality of first oximetry readings”.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, claim 5 recites “the second oximetry readings” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this limitation refers to the plurality of second oximetry readings or another second set of oximetry readings. A similar recitation is present in lines 2-3 of claim 15. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim limitations are interpreted as “the plurality of second oximetry readings”.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein resetting the display of the average comprises rotating the oximetry system about a horizontal axis by the predetermined first number of degrees” in lines 1-4. Claim 8 describes starting a first new averaging, wherein the first new averaging comprises resetting the display, and is started when the oximetry system is rotated about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees. Claim 8 implies that rotating the oximetry system about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees starts the first new averaging, which comprises resetting the display. Therefore, the rotating of the oximetry system must be performed before the resetting of the display. Claim 9 implies that the rotating of the oximetry system is a part of resetting of the display. It is unclear how rotating the system is both a prerequisite for the resetting to occur and a part of the resetting. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, any reference or combination of references that reads on the claim limitations of claim 8 (namely, rotating the oximetry system about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees and resetting the display) also reads on the claim limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “wherein providing for the start of the first new averaging comprises” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what this recitation refers to, as there is no previous recitation of “providing for the start of the first new averaging”. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “wherein starting of the first new averaging of oximetry readings comprises”.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2014/0046152 by Bechtel et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Bechtel”) in view of US Patent Publication 2017/0119313 by Helvick et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Helvick”) in view of US Patent 10,716,499 by Freeman – previously cited (hereinafter “Freeman”).
Regarding claim 1, Bechtel teaches a method comprising: providing an oximetry system (tissue oximetry device 100); contacting, via the oximetry system, a first tissue of a patient ([0120]; oximetry probe 100 is in contact with tissue); making, via the oximetry system, a plurality of first oximetry readings of the first tissue ([0092]; a plurality of oxygen saturation values can be made and repeated); generating, via the oximetry system, an average value for the plurality of first oximetry readings; and displaying, via a display of the oximetry system, a value for the average ([0092]; “Two or more measurements, such as three measurements, of the oxygen saturation value can be averaged by control processor 200 for display on display 125.”).
Bechtel does not teach removing the oximetry system from contact with the first tissue or detecting, via the oximetry system, the removal from contact with the first tissue. It is noted that Bechtel teaches a pressure sensor that can sense if the pressure between the probe tip and the tissue is in range to produce a valid tissue oximetry measurement ([0251]).
Helvick teaches a system where a proximity sensor is used to determine whether contact is made between the sensor device and tissue. If contact is established, measurements start and when contact stops, the measurements stop. This method determines when to start and stop measurements, improving the reliability of the system output and system longevity ([0005]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of Bechtel to include removing the oximetry system from contact with the first tissue and detecting, via the oximetry system, the removal from contact with the first tissue, to improve the reliability of the system output and system longevity, as taught by Helvick ([0005]). It is noted that in the combination of Bechtel and Helvick, the pressure sensor can be selected as the proximity sensor to perform the step of detecting contact with the tissue.
The combination of Bechtel and Helvick does not teach storing, via a memory of the oximetry system, a value for one of the first oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the first tissue; contacting, via the oximetry system, a second tissue of a patient; making, via the oximetry system, a plurality of second oximetry readings of the second tissue; removing the oximetry system from contact with the second tissue; detecting, via the oximetry system, the removal from contact with the second tissue; retrieving from the memory of the oximetry system one of the plurality of first oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue; generating, via the oximetry system, an average of the value for the one of the plurality of first oximetry readings and a value for one of the plurality of second oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact from the second tissue.
Freeman teaches a system capable of collecting a plurality of oximetry measurements from areas or volumes of tissue or body fluid. By collecting a plurality of oximetry measurements throughout the area or volume (two or more locations), the method allows for calculations to be performed to arrive at comparative, blended, or computed values (e.g., average values) (Col 12, lines 57-67).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by the combination of Bechtel and Helvick to include contacting, via the oximetry system, a second tissue of a patient; making, via the oximetry system, a plurality of second oximetry readings of the second tissue; removing the oximetry system from contact with the second tissue; detecting, via the oximetry system, the removal from contact with the second tissue, as collecting pluralities of measurements can enable comparative, blended, or computed values over an area or volume, as taught by Freeman (Col 12, lines 57-67). It is noted that Bechtel teaches obtaining average values from a plurality of measurements ([0092]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an average value as a computed value when determining the measurement over an area or three-dimensional volume. It is noted that in this combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman, the average values can only be computed if at least one measurement from the first location is stored in a memory, and is then retrieved to calculate the average. Based on the modification in view of Helvick, all measurements are made based on the determination of contact and stopped based on the determination of removal of contact. Therefore, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman also teaches storing, via a memory of the oximetry system, a value for one of the first oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the first tissue; retrieving from the memory of the oximetry system one of the plurality of first oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue; generating, via the oximetry system, an average of the value for the one of the plurality of first oximetry readings and a value for one of the plurality of second oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact from the second tissue.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second tissues are different tissue locations of a patient (to measure an average over a volume (Freeman, Col 12, lines 57-67; the first tissue and second tissue measured would be in different locations within the volume)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second tissues are the same tissue of a patient (to measure an average over an area the size of the probe tip (Freeman, (Col 12, lines 57-67; the first tissue and second tissue measured could be the same location within the area).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the oximetry system is a tissue oximeter (Bechtel, [0010]; in an implementation, the device is a tissue oximeter).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the oximetry device is a laparoscopic oximeter (Bechtel, [0270]; “In one application of tissue oximetry probe 100, the tissue oximetry probe can be used by a physician for a laparoscope procedure to measure the oxygen saturation of tissues within a patient.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teaches a method comprising: providing an oximetry system (Bechtel, [0010]; “In an implementation, the device is a tissue oximeter”), comprising: a housing (Bechtel, [0011]; enclosure of tissue oximetry system); a processor housed by the housing (Bechtel, [0011]; printed circuit board includes a processor within the enclosure); a memory housed by the housing coupled to the processor (Bechtel, [0011]; printed circuit board includes a memory coupled to the processor within the enclosure); a display, housed by the housing and visible from an exterior of the housing, coupled to the processor (Bechtel, [0011]; “The enclosure includes a display, coupled to the processor where the display is visible from an exterior side of the enclosure.”); and a sensor head (Bechtel, [0108]; sensor head 250 and probe tip 300), housed by the housing and visible from an exterior of the housing (Bechtel, [0108]; tip portion of housing 105 holds the sensor head and probe tip), the sensor head comprising, at least a first source structure; and at least a first detector structure (Bechtel, [0011-0012]; probe tip includes at least first, second, and third sensor openings which includes at least a light source and two light detectors), contacting, via the sensor head (Bechtel, [0104, 0108]; the sensor head and probe tip are pressed against the tissue), a first tissue of a patient (Bechtel, [0120]; oximetry probe 100 is in contact with tissue); making, via the processor and the sensor head (Bechtel, Abstract; “The enclosure includes code stored in the memory where the code is executable by the processor, and includes code to receive first data associated with the first and second sensor openings, code to receive second data associated with the first and second sensor openings, and code to perform SRS using the first and the second data.” Therefore all measurements are made via the processor and sensor head, as the sensor head comprises the first and second sensor openings.), a plurality of first oximetry readings, (See the rejection of claim 1); removing the oximetry system from contact with the first tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); detecting, via the processor (Bechtel, [0252]; The pressure sensor is used to determine contact with the tissue and provides an indication via the display. As the display is controlled by the processor, the determination of contact with the tissue is also done via the processor), the removal from contact with the first tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); storing, via a memory of the oximetry system, for one of the first of the plurality of oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the first tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); contacting, via the sensor head, a second tissue of a patient (See the rejection of claim 1); making, via processor and the sensor head, a plurality of second oximetry readings of the second tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); removing the oximetry system from contact with the second tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); detecting, via the processor, the removal from contact with the second tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); retrieving from the memory of the oximetry system one of the plurality of first oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); generating, via the processor, an average of the value for the one of the plurality of first oximetry readings and a value for one of the plurality of second oximetry readings based on the oximetry system detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue (See the rejection of claim 1); and displaying, via the display of the oximetry system, a value for the average (See the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teach the method of claim 11, wherein the first and second tissues are different tissue locations of a patient (to measure an average over a volume (as taught by Freeman (Col 12, lines 57-67)), the first tissue and second tissue measured would be in different locations within the volume).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teach the method of claim 11, wherein the first and second tissues are different tissue of a patient (to measure an average over an area the size of the probe tip (as taught by Freeman (Col 12, lines 57-67)), the first tissue and second tissue measured could be the same location within the area).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teach the method of claim 11, wherein the oximetry device is a tissue oximeter (Bechtel, [0010]; in an implementation, the device is a tissue oximeter).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman teach the method of claim 16, wherein the oximetry device is a laparoscopic oximeter (Bechtel, [0270]; See the rejection of claim 7).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtel in view of Helvick in view of Freeman, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0279939 by Madsen et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Madsen”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a stored value is a value for a second to last one of the plurality of first oximetry readings taken by the oximetry system prior to the system unit detecting being removed from contact with the first tissue.
Madsen teaches a system that collects physiological signals from a subject. The system clips, or removes, data at the beginning and end of a dataset to remove the effects of transients ([0047, 0068]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman so that the stored value is a value for a second to last one of the plurality of first oximetry readings taken by the oximetry system prior to the system unit detecting being removed from contact with the first tissue, in order to remove the effects of transients, as taught by Madsen ([0047, 0068]). It is noted that Becthel teaches collecting three measurements ([0092]), therefore removing the data at the beginning and end as taught by Madsen would leave a single data value, the second to last oximetry measurement.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the value for the one of the plurality of second oximetry readings is a value for a second to last one of the second oximetry readings taken by the oximetry system prior to the system unit detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue.
Madsen teaches a system that collects physiological signals from a subject. The system clips, or removes, data at the end of a dataset to remove the effects of transients ([0047, 0068]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman so that the value for the one of the plurality of second oximetry readings is a value for a second to last one of the second oximetry readings taken by the oximetry system prior to the system unit detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue, to remove the effects of transients, as taught by Madsen ([0047, 0068]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach wherein the stored value is a value for a second to last one of the plurality of first oximetry readings taken by the oximetry device prior to the device unit being removed from contact with the first tissue.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman as described in the rejection of claim 4, in order to remove the effects of transients, as taught by Madsen ([0047, 0068]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach wherein the value for the one of the plurality of second oximetry readings is a value for a second to last one of the second oximetry readings taken by the oximetry system prior to the system unit detecting being removed from contact with the second tissue.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman as described in the rejection of claim 5, in order to remove the effects of transients, as taught by Madsen ([0047, 0068]).
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtel in view of Helvick in view of Freeman, as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of US Patent Publication 2013/012010 by Cauwels et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Cauwels”).
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the method further comprising starting a first new averaging when the oximetry system is rotated about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees, wherein the first new averaging comprises resetting the display and initiating a first new average.
Cauwels teaches a device such that movement, can be interpreted as a sensed gesture and used as an input to control the device ([0135]). Different inputs signals may be configured to be sensed when the device is rotated by a predetermined amount ([0125, 0136]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman to include starting a first new averaging when the oximetry system is rotated about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees, as taught by Cauwels ([0125, 0136]).
It is noted that the method step of taking oximetry measurements (starting a first new averaging) is a primary function of the oximetry device provided by the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman of claim 1, therefore using a gesture as an input gesture to activate this function is combing known prior art elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143-I-A. It is further noted that this new averaging would include displaying a new average, as updating the display is a function of the oximetry device provided by the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman of claim 1 (Bechtel; [0093]) (e.g., resetting the display and initiating a new average, as the average is displayed on the display, a new average would necessitate resetting the display such that the new average can be displayed). Since the rotation about the horizontal axis causes the resetting of the display, this combination also reads on the claim limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, Freeman, and Cauwels teaches the method of claim 8, but does not teach the method further comprising preventing the oximetry system from starting a second new averaging when the oximetry system is rotated within a predetermined second number of degrees from the predetermined first number of degrees after the oximetry system is rotated by the predetermined first number of degrees, wherein the second new averaging comprises resetting the display and initiating a second new average.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, Freeman, and Cauwels to include providing for the oximetry system to prevent the oximetry system from a start of a second new averaging when the oximetry system is rotated within a predetermined second number of degrees from the predetermined first number of degrees after the oximetry system is rotated by the predetermined first number of degrees, wherein the second new averaging comprises resetting the display and initiating a second new average.
It is noted that the method step of not collecting data when the oximetry device does not satisfy predetermined conditions (i.e., is not in contact with the tissue) is provided by the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman of claim 1 (Bechtel; [0093]), therefore using a gesture as an input gesture to activate this function is combing known prior art elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143-I-A. It is further noted that a new averaging would be a function of the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, Freeman and Cauwels, therefore the combination would comprise using a gesture to prevent the collection of data, which comprises functions disclosed by Bechtel and Cauwels.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick and Freeman teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach the method further comprising starting a first new averaging of oximetry readings when the oximetry device is rotated about a horizontal axis by a predetermined first number of degrees, wherein providing for the start of the first new averaging comprises the resetting of the display of the value for the average and initiating a first new average.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman as described in the rejection of claim 8, in order to use gestures to control the oximetry device, as taught by Cauwels ([0125, 0136]). Using a gesture as an input gesture to activate this function is combing known prior art elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143-I-A and the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, Freeman, and Cauwels teaches the method of claim 18, when the oximetry device is rotated about a horizontal axis by the predetermined first number of degrees, the processor to removes oximetry information displayed on the display (Rotating the oximetry device by the predetermined first number of degrees starts a first new averaging comprising resetting the display. As the average is displayed on the display, a new average would necessitate resetting (i.e., removing previous average oximetry information) the display such that the new average can be displayed).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bechtel, Helvick, Freeman, and Cauwels teaches the method of claim 18, wherein when the oximetry device is rotated within a predetermined second number of degrees from the predetermined first number of degrees after the oximetry device is rotated by the first number of degrees, the processor to prevents a start of a second new averaging, wherein preventing the start of a second new averaging comprises not resetting the display of the value for the average and not initiating a second new average (See the rejection of claim 10 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-20. However, the amendments to the claims necessitate new rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s filing of the Terminal Disclaimer is acknowledged, and the double patenting rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Helvick reference as non-analogous art is not found persuasive. The Helvick reference teaches a system that uses a sensor to determine contact with the user’s body, and controlling the beginning and end of measurements based on the contact with the user’s body in order to improve the reliability of the system ([0005]). This goal of improving the reliability of the system output (i.e., measurements) is shared by Bechtel, as Bechtel teaches that a pressure sensor may be used to sense if the pressure between the probe tip and the tissue is in range to produce a valid tissue oximetry measurement ([0251]). Therefore, both references share a common field of endeavor of determining contact with the tissue in order to improve the reliability (i.e., validity) of measurements. Further, the present invention is directed towards this field of endeavor of determining contact with the tissue (and a lack of contact) to determine the validity of the oximetry information (for example, in par. [0138] of the published specification).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination suggested by the Examiner is a technically problematic combination with no real benefit to be imbued is not found persuasive. It is noted that Applicant has not identified which combination this argument is made in regards to, therefore it is assumed that the combination in question is that of Bechtel, Helvick, and Freeman. In this Office action, and the Final Office action mailed on 02/24/2024, the rationale for modifying Bechtel in view of Helvick is for the benefit of improving the reliability of the system output and system longevity (Helvick; [0005]). The rationale for modifying the method of Bechtel and Helvick in view of Freeman is to allow for calculations to be performed to arrive at comparative, blended, or computed oximetry values (Freeman; Col 12, lines 57-67), which is also a goal of Bechtel ([0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2016/0278674 by Lisogurski teaches a method of using an oximetry sensor to generate an average of a plurality of readings from the sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights