DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
In claim 1, “a single conduit cable” is vague as it is unclear if this means there is a conduit cable having a single conduit, or if this means there is one conduit cable. Similarly, claims 11 and 19 have this problem. The arguments on page 15 of the response seem to indicate that a cable having a single conduit is being claimed. However, the specification at paragraphs 18 and 33 state the object of the invention is to use one cable, and “single” was added to the original phrase “conduit cable”, and therefore it is unclear what term—the cable or the conduit--“single” applies to.
In claims 6, 8, 14, and 16, “type” is vague as it is unclear what the metes and bounds are of “type”. What is considered “button-type” or “tab-type”?
In claim 8, lines 1-2, the claim is vague for further limiting the ECG electrode, “ECG electrode…comprises…”, as it is unclear if the claim is positively reciting/claiming the electrodes or not. As claim 1 only functionally recites the electrodes, and claim 8 does not state the system “further comprises” the ECG electrodes, the examiner has interpreted the claim as not containing or positively claiming the electrodes. Similarly, claims 14 and 16 have this problem.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ayer (4353372). Ayer discloses the use of a unitary cable conduit (e.g. col. 1, lines 35-52, col. 3, lines 14-15, etc.) for six electrically isolated wires and 6 ecg electrode connectors (e.g. figures 1-7, col. 3, lines 14-23; cable, 20, ecg connector, 21-26/49, etc.) that are directly on the single conduit cable at different locations, where the connectors contain a mylar sheet release mechanism (e.g. figure 2, 44/46, etc.) to attach or release the ECG electrodes (e.g. figures 3, 15, etc.) and the ecg connectors are capable of meeting the functional use recitations of making physical and electrical connection with a button-type or tab-type electrode since figures 3 and 15 shows a similar button/tab type electrode and/or since a button or tab electrode may be electrically and mechanically coupled to the ecg connectors.
Another interpretation would be that the single trunk of Ayer is a conduit cable that has a single trunk (e.g. figure 1, such as at the trunk end at element 46) where the electrode connectors are considered the lead and round part (e.g. elements 36 and 26 for the first connector, element 35 and 25 for the second connector, etc.) and are directly connected to the single conduit connector at the cable’s trunk, with the trunk extending to the last electrode connector (such as at elements 31 and 21).
For claims 11 and 20, the connector is considered the connector shown in figures 8-10 that have individual contacts for physically and electrically connecting to each of the lead wires (e.g. figures 8-10, element 112, col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 64, etc.) to provide physical and electrical connection to two separate cables (e.g. 20 and 80, etc.) for the electrodes. For claims 9 and 17, the claims only state the ecg connectors can be moved to different locations along the cable, which Ayers provides since his ecg connectors (e.g. 21-26, etc.) are movable and flexible and can be moved to different locations “along” the cable. Note that the claims do not state that the connectors are placed over the cable and move along the cable by being slid over and along the cable (in the alternative, see the 103 rejection below). Similarly, another interpretation for claims 11 and 20 would be that the electrode connectors are the lead and round part connected at different locations to the single conduit of the cable at trunk 100.
Claims 1-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McFee (6400975). McFee discloses a single conduit cable 202 having 6 individual electrically isolated wires (e.g. figures 2a, 3 etc.) that has a connector at the end for connection to an ECG device (e.g. figure 2a/3, element 226, or col. 12, lines 26-37, etc.) with 6 movable electrode connectors for releasing and stopping the connectors (e.g. figure 2b, element 206, etc.). Note that the amendments to claims 8, 14, and 16 (and claim 6) do not positively recite the tab or button type electrodes, just that the connector can be used for physical and electrical connection to those “types” of electrodes. The device contains electrodes 280, as part of the connector and these electrodes can physically and electrically connector to other types of electrodes, such as button or tab type electrodes by touching the electrodes to element 280, or applying adhesive to the electrodes to touch electrode 280.
Claims 1-8, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ubby et al (7021960). Ubby discloses a single conduit cable (e.g. figures 1-6, element 12, etc.) having up to 10 individual electrically isolated wires (e.g. figure 2, element 20, col 1, lines 60-67, etc.) that has a connector at the end for connection to an ECG device (e.g. figure 1, element 10, etc.) with up to 10 electrode connectors (e.g. figures 2 and 3, element 16, etc.) for holding and releasing button/snap type electrodes, or for holding a flat electrode/electrode connectors (e.g. figure 4, element 32, etc.) that are capable of being used to physically and electrically attach to tab-type electrodes. Note that the amendments to claims 8, 14, and 16 (and claim 6) do not positively recite the tab or button type electrodes, just that the connector can be used for physical and electrical connection to those “types” of electrodes. The device contains snap/button connectors (e.g. element 16) or flat type electrodes on the connector (e.g. figure 4, element 32, etc.) and these button connectors or flat electrodes can physically and electrically connector to other types of electrodes, such as button or tab type electrodes, by touching the electrodes to the button/16 or flat electrode/34, or by applying adhesive for the connection between elements. Ubby also discloses that a separate second cable can be used and the system can have 4 connectors on one cable and 6 connectors on the other capable, where the second cable is connected to ECG connector 10 (e.g. figure 7, col. 4, lines 48-54, claims 23, 36, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayer. Ayer discloses the claimed invention for a 12 lead ECG using 10 electrodes, but does not disclose the first and second cables having stop and release mechanisms for the ecg connectors to be released from the first or second cable to move over and along the first or second cable to a different location and a stop mechanism for the preventing movement of the ecg connectors over the first or second cable (e.g. claims 9-10 and 17-18) and the second cable having 6 electrodes with 6 wires. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (and is admitted prior art as the applicant has not pointed out the errors in the examiner’s findings and/or provided evidence of non-obviousness) to have modified the system and method as taught by Ayer, with the first and second cables having stop and release mechanisms for the ecg connectors to be released from the first or second cable to move over and along the first or second cable to a different location and a stop mechanism for the preventing movement of the ecg connectors over the first or second cable (e.g. claims 9-10 and 17-18) and the second cable having 6 electrodes with 6 wires, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03) since it would provide the predictable results of: allowing the ecg connectors and corresponding electrodes to be moved along the cables so that the ecg recordings can be accurately taken from different sized patients (e.g. child vs. adult vs. overweight) using one cable that is on hand; and providing additional electrodes above the standard 12 lead/10 electrodes, such as using 6 electrodes with 6 wires on the second cable, to provide additional ecg signals to use to better diagnose the patient’s heart condition. In the alternative, or in addition, for claim 12, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of electrodes and wires on the second cable to be 6 and 6, because Applicant has not disclosed that 6 electrodes and 6 wires on the second cable provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the 4 electrodes and 4 wires as taught by Ayers on the second cable, because it effectively provides for a 12 lead ecg using the standard 10 electrodes so that a doctor can diagnose the patient’s heart condition using a conventional 12 lead ecg. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Ayer to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubby. Ubby discloses the claimed invention for a 12 lead ECG using 10 electrodes, but does not disclose the first and second cables having stop and release mechanisms for the ecg connectors to be released from the first or second cable to move over and along the first or second cable to a different location and a stop mechanism for the preventing movement of the ecg connectors over the first or second cable (e.g. claims 9-10 and 17-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Ubby, with the first and second cables having stop and release mechanisms for the ecg connectors to be released from the first or second cable to move over and along the first or second cable to a different location and a stop mechanism for the preventing movement of the ecg connectors over the first or second cable (e.g. claims 9-10 and 17-18), as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03) since it would provide the predictable results of: allowing the ecg connectors and corresponding electrodes to be moved along the cables so that the ecg recordings can be accurately taken from different sized patients (e.g. child vs. adult vs. overweight) using one cable that is on hand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argument that “tab type” and “button type” electrodes are well known and that a simple google search produces definitions for those are not persuasive. Google and AI google searches are not dictionaries, are dependent on who programs the AI or search engine, and are not always correct. In addition, MPEP 2173.05b specifically references “type” as being a vague/relative term. “The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986)”.
For the 102, it was noted that the first office action rejection originally contained a 102 rejection in view of McFee and that rejection was not argued and therefore has not been overcome.
For the 102 rejection in view of Ayer, it is noted that the claimed term “single” conduit cable is vague as addressed in the 112b rejection. However, Ayer is a conduit cable, and shows and calls his cable a “unitary” cable and therefore is a single conduit cable. While the applicant may argue that Ayer teaches electrode pads/connectors connected only to its own branch and not to the “joined trunk cable”, the current claims contain no claim limitation that states that the single conduit cable cannot have trunks, but only that the connectors are connected to the single conduit cable. In addition, the rejection of Ayer was updated in view of the claim amendments. Also, a rejection was added in view of Ubby due to the claim amendments relating to a “single” conduit cable and the connector directly connected to the conduit cable.
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 George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on 571-270-5213. 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.
/George R Evanisko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 10/22/25