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 October 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application.
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:
Claim 1 and 11: Claim limitation “an acoustic exciter configured to receive an electrical input signal and to produce an acoustic signal, the acoustic exciter being provided on a first substrate portion;” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “exciter” coupled with functional language “to receive an electrical input signal and to produce an acoustic signal” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “exciter”.
Claim 8 and 18: Claim limitation “an attachment element configured to attach the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to the forearm of a patient over the radial artery” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “to attach” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “element”.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 8 and 18: “an attachment element” refers to [0036], tape, strap, etc.
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 § 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukukita et al. (US 6,275,447 B1) (“Fukukita”) in view of Han et al. (US 2022/0087553 A1) (“Han”).
Regarding claim 1, Fukukita discloses A blood pressure monitoring system comprising (Abstract and entire document):
an acoustic exciter configured to receive an electrical input signal and to produce an acoustic signal, the acoustic exciter being provided on a first substrate portion (FIG. 9A, “sound generation unit 6b” provided on “substrate 51”);
an acoustic detector spaced apart from the acoustic exciter, the acoustic detector being configured to detect the acoustic signal and to produce an electrical output signal, the acoustic detector being provided on a second substrate portion that is acoustically decoupled from the first substrate portion (FIG. 9A, “sound detection unit 9a” provided on “substrate 52”, as shown the substrates 51 and 52 are separate and acoustically decoupled, see at least col. 9 line 14, “The connecting substrate 53 is made of a Polyimide sheet which is unextensible to keep the distance Lc.” The substrates 51, 52 and 53 can all be considered as a single substrate or as separate substrates); and
a processor configured to determine a blood pressure measurement from the electrical output signal (FIG. 1, “signal processing circuit 16” and “blood pressure operation circuit 17” see at least col. 4-6 discussing a signal generation sent to the exciter, transmitted through the body and received by the detector to produce an output signal that is converted into a blood pressure value, see col. 6 lines 37-62, “The phase Ps obtained by the signal processing circuit 16 is supplied to the blood pressure operation circuit 17 which converts the phase Ps into a blood pressure value. More specifically, an instantaneous value of the blood pressure is obtained from the value of the phase Ps in accordance with a relation between the phase Ps and the actual blood pressure which is previously obtained by actual measurement with a maximum and minimum hemadynamometer and is stored in a memory in the blood pressure operation circuit 17. The blood pressure operation circuit 17 outputs the blood pressure data.”),
Fukukita fails to disclose wherein the first and second substrate portions are separated by U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches wherein the first and second substrate portions are separated by U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector (As shown in FIG. 5A-5B and associated paragraphs, see [0235] discussing the linear rows of ultrasonic transducer sensors/acoustic sensors see [0113], the u shape gap is the gap between the rows of substrate comprising the sensors, the gap surrounding 3 sides of the substrate comprising the sensors).
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 system as taught by Fukukita to include wherein the first and second substrate portions are separated by U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector as taught by Han to separate the sensing modules ([0236], “Each of the first row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules and the second row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules extend across the length of the flexible circuit 502 and are arranged in a distributed manner such that a constant pitch do separates individual pressure sensor modules along the length of the flexible circuit 502.”).
Regarding claim 3, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are separated by acoustically absorptive material (FIG. 9A, see at least col. 9 line 14, “The connecting substrate 53 is made of a Polyimide sheet which is unextensible to keep the distance Lc.” Polyimide is acoustically absorptive).
Regarding claim 4, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the blood pressure measurement based on a measured phase delay between the electrical input signal and the electrical output signal (FIG. 1, “signal processing circuit 16” and “blood pressure operation circuit 17” see at least col. 4-6 discussing a signal generation sent to the exciter, transmitted through the body and received by the detector to produce an output signal that is converted into a blood pressure value, see col. 6 lines 37-62, “The phase Ps obtained by the signal processing circuit 16 is supplied to the blood pressure operation circuit 17 which converts the phase Ps into a blood pressure value. More specifically, an instantaneous value of the blood pressure is obtained from the value of the phase Ps in accordance with a relation between the phase Ps and the actual blood pressure which is previously obtained by actual measurement with a maximum and minimum hemadynamometer and is stored in a memory in the blood pressure operation circuit 17. The blood pressure operation circuit 17 outputs the blood pressure data.”).
Regarding claim 5, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses wherein the first substrate portion and the second substrate portion are flexible (Col. 5 lines 4-5, “The sound generation unit 6 further includes a substrate 51 which is not a piezoelectric substance and is flexible.” The substrates 51, 52 and 53 are all flexible).
Regarding claim 6, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses further comprising a flexible circuit that connects the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to an electrical connector (FIG. 11 and col. 9 lines 38-47, “FIG. 11 is a plan view of an acoustic sensor of a tenth embodiment. The structure of the tenth embodiment is substantially the same as that of the eighth embodiment. The difference is that the connecting substrate is provided by a flexible cable 55 including a connector 56 and wires 57 for connecting the connecter 56 to each of bimorph cells 31 to 35 and 81 to 83.”).
Regarding claim 7, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses wherein the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector each comprise a piezo device or a microelectromechanical system (FIG. 9A, 6b an d9a comprise biomorph cells interpreted as piezo device or microelectromechanical system).
Regarding claim 8, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 1, Fukukita further discloses further comprising an attachment element configured to attach the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to the forearm of a patient over the radial artery (Col. 4 line 67, “FIG. 2C is a front view of the sound generation unit 6 of the first embodiment in the condition that the sound generation unit 6 is attached to and held on the arm 2 by a not-shown belt or by the other arm or the like.”).
Regarding claim 10, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 8, Fukukita further discloses further comprising an alignment indicator to align a measurement axis of the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to the radial artery (anything on the device or belt/attachment means can be considered an alignment indicator to assist in proper placement).
Regarding claim 11, Fukukita discloses A blood pressure monitoring system comprising (Abstract and entire document):
an acoustic exciter configured to receive an electrical input signal and to produce an acoustic signal, the acoustic exciter being provided on a substrate (FIG. 9A, “sound generation unit 6b” provided on “substrate 51”);
an acoustic detector spaced apart from the acoustic exciter, the acoustic detector being configured to detect the acoustic signal and to produce an electrical output signal, the acoustic detector being provided on the substrate (FIG. 9A, “sound detection unit 9a” provided on “substrate 52”, as shown the substrates 51 and 52 are separate and acoustically decoupled, see at least col. 9 line 14, “The connecting substrate 53 is made of a Polyimide sheet which is unextensible to keep the distance Lc.” The substrates 51, 52 and 53 can all be considered as a single substrate or as separate substrates); and
a processor configured to determine a blood pressure measurement from the electrical output signal (FIG. 1, “signal processing circuit 16” and “blood pressure operation circuit 17” see at least col. 4-6 discussing a signal generation sent to the exciter, transmitted through the body and received by the detector to produce an output signal that is converted into a blood pressure value, see col. 6 lines 37-62, “The phase Ps obtained by the signal processing circuit 16 is supplied to the blood pressure operation circuit 17 which converts the phase Ps into a blood pressure value. More specifically, an instantaneous value of the blood pressure is obtained from the value of the phase Ps in accordance with a relation between the phase Ps and the actual blood pressure which is previously obtained by actual measurement with a maximum and minimum hemadynamometer and is stored in a memory in the blood pressure operation circuit 17. The blood pressure operation circuit 17 outputs the blood pressure data.”),
wherein a gap in the substrate exists along a straight line path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector (FIG. 9A, substrate 51 and 52 comprise a gap, see also FIG. 9B),
Fukukita fails to disclose wherein the gap is a U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches wherein the gap is a U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector (As shown in FIG. 5A-5B and associated paragraphs, see [0235] discussing the linear rows of ultrasonic transducer sensors/acoustic sensors see [0113], the u shape gap is the gap between the rows of substrate comprising the sensors, the gap surrounding 3 sides of the substrate comprising the sensors).
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 system as taught by Fukukita to include wherein the gap is a U-shaped gap surrounding at least three sides of at least one of: the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector as taught by Han to separate the sensing modules ([0236], “Each of the first row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules and the second row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules extend across the length of the flexible circuit 502 and are arranged in a distributed manner such that a constant pitch do separates individual pressure sensor modules along the length of the flexible circuit 502.”).
Regarding claim 12, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is longer than the straight line path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector (FIG. 9A, substrate 51 and 52 comprise a gap, see also FIG. 9B. The straight line path from the exciters to the detectors is shorter than following a path along the substrate portions. See also FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is longer than the straight line path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector (FIG. 9A, substrate 51 and 52 comprise a gap, see also FIG. 9B. The straight line path from the exciters to the detectors is shorter than following a path along the substrate portions. See also FIG. 11).
Fukukita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least two times longer than the distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches wherein the path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least two times longer than the distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector (As shown in FIG. 5A-5B the gap is narrow, the distance from the sensors on the left half across the gap is much shorter than the distance following the substrate).
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 system as taught by Fukukita as modified to include wherein the path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least two times longer than the distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector as taught by Han to separate the sensing modules ([0236], “Each of the first row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules and the second row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules extend across the length of the flexible circuit 502 and are arranged in a distributed manner such that a constant pitch do separates individual pressure sensor modules along the length of the flexible circuit 502.”).
Regarding claim 14, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11,
Fukukita further discloses wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is longer than the straight line path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector (FIG. 9A, substrate 51 and 52 comprise a gap, see also FIG. 9B. The straight line path from the exciters to the detectors is shorter than following a path along the substrate portions. See also FIG. 11).
Fukukita fails to explicitly disclose wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least five times longer than a distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least five times longer than a distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector (As shown in FIG. 5A-5B the gap is narrow, the distance from the sensors on the left half across the gap is much shorter than the distance following the substrate).
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 system as taught by Fukukita as modified to include wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least five times longer than a distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector as taught by Han to separate the sensing modules ([0236], “Each of the first row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules and the second row of the array of groups of pressure sensor modules extend across the length of the flexible circuit 502 and are arranged in a distributed manner such that a constant pitch do separates individual pressure sensor modules along the length of the flexible circuit 502.”).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to determine the optimal distance, including wherein the path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least five times longer than the distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since applicant has not disclosed that this limitation solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality that wherein the path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate is at least five times longer than the distance between the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 15, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses wherein a path from the acoustic exciter to the acoustic detector via the substrate comprises acoustically absorptive material (FIG. 9A, see at least col. 9 line 14, “The connecting substrate 53 is made of a Polyimide sheet which is unextensible to keep the distance Lc.” Polyimide is acoustically absorptive).
Regarding claim 16, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the blood pressure measurement based on a measured phase delay between the electrical input signal and the electrical output signal (FIG. 1, “signal processing circuit 16” and “blood pressure operation circuit 17” see at least col. 4-6 discussing a signal generation sent to the exciter, transmitted through the body and received by the detector to produce an output signal that is converted into a blood pressure value, see col. 6 lines 37-62, “The phase Ps obtained by the signal processing circuit 16 is supplied to the blood pressure operation circuit 17 which converts the phase Ps into a blood pressure value. More specifically, an instantaneous value of the blood pressure is obtained from the value of the phase Ps in accordance with a relation between the phase Ps and the actual blood pressure which is previously obtained by actual measurement with a maximum and minimum hemadynamometer and is stored in a memory in the blood pressure operation circuit 17. The blood pressure operation circuit 17 outputs the blood pressure data.”).
Regarding claim 17, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses wherein the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector comprise a piezo device or a microelectromechanical system (FIG. 9A, 6b an d9a comprise biomorph cells interpreted as piezo device or microelectromechanical system).
Regarding claim 18, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 11, Fukukita further discloses further comprising an attachment element configured to attach the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to the forearm of a patient over the radial artery (Col. 4 line 67, “FIG. 2C is a front view of the sound generation unit 6 of the first embodiment in the condition that the sound generation unit 6 is attached to and held on the arm 2 by a not-shown belt or by the other arm or the like.”).
Regarding claim 20, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 18, Fukukita further discloses further comprising an alignment indicator to align a measurement axis of the acoustic exciter and the acoustic detector to the radial artery (anything on the device or belt/attachment means can be considered an alignment indicator to assist in proper placement).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukukita in view of Han in further view of Xu et al. (US 2019/0328354 A1) (“Xu”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Fukukita as modified discloses The blood pressure monitoring system of claim 8/18, Fukukita as modified fails to disclose wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate ([0166], “Due to its excellent mechanical compliance and lightweight (0.15 g), the device described herein can maintain intimate and stable contact with the human skin both mechanically and acoustically in different body postures with pure van der Waals force. The device conformability and self-adhesion on the neck under different postures is illustrated in FIG. 62, where FIG. 62A shows a normal state;”).
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 system as taught by Fukukita as modified to include wherein the attachment element comprises an adhesive substrate as taught by Xu to maintain stable contact ([0166], “Due to its excellent mechanical compliance and lightweight (0.15 g), the device described herein can maintain intimate and stable contact with the human skin both mechanically and acoustically in different body postures with pure van der Waals force. The device conformability and self-adhesion on the neck under different postures is illustrated in FIG. 62, where FIG. 62A shows a normal state;”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamasaki et al. (US-20170143308-A1) and McGrath et al. (US-12303324-B2). Both disclose similar ultrasonic measurement devices including substrates with sensor arrangements as claimed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791