DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 21 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 Claim 1, the limitations “first proximal end” and “second distal end” of the rod-shaped device body render the claim indefinite. The use of the modifiers “first” and “second” in this context is confusing and indefinite because a rod has two ends, a proximal end and a distal end. When the claim modifies these spatial terms with modifiers “first” and “second” the claim becomes ambiguous because it is unclear if there is another “first” distal end. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim just proximal and distal ends (where the modifiers first and second are removed). The rejection may be overcome by simply removing the modifiers from the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140200054 A1 to Fraden..
Regarding Claim 1, Fraden discloses a sensor device comprising inter alia:
a cell phone (smartphone 16) including a front face (“phone display” side, [0026]) and a back face (“the read side [of phone]”, [0026]) positioned a spaced distance apart (sides of phone that separate the front and back faces), and a display (“phone display” [0026]);
a separable sensor device ([0027] “…a module, 9, that may comprise one or more sensors of the external stimuli…”) (the sensor, e.g., sensor of module 9 is “separable” because it is “separable” from both the smartphone 16 and the back 1 of the protective case 21) including a longitudinally extending rod-shaped device body (side extension 8, which is generally “rod-shaped” and extends from protective case 21), a sensor positioned on a first proximal end of the rod-shaped device body (the sensor is positioned on front 2 of side extension 8, this surface is being interpreted as the “first proximal end”, [0026]), and a pair of grasping arms positioned at a second distal end of the rod-shaped device body (back 1 and front 2, to which the side extension is attached to [0026]) (the side portions side extension 8 that directly connect to back 1 and front 2 are being interpreted as the “second distal end”), the grasping arms movable to grasp the front face and the back face to support the separable sensor device on the cell phone ([0026] “…the back, 1, and front, 2, sides of a protective case, 21, for holding a mobile communication device…”), wherein the grasping arms extend from the rod-shaped device body in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the rod-shaped device body (as shown below in annotated FIG. 3); and
an electrical connector (connector 6 and wiring harness 10) on the distal end of the rod-shaped device body (wiring hardness is shown in FIG. 3 as traversing the interpreted distal end to extend from the sensor to the connector 6) that is configured to allow electrical communication between the separable sensor device and the cell phone ([0026] “The connector, 6, may be incorporated inside the case, 21, for coupling to the inner electronic components and battery of the smartphone.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 3
Regarding Claim 5, Fraden discloses wherein the pair of grasping arms are configured to be arranged in a first position where the grasping arms are positioned a first spaced distance apart, and arranged in a second position where the grasping arms are positioned a second spaced distance apart that is greater than first spaced distance (back 1 and front 2, to which the side extension is attached to [0026]) (the back 1 and front 2 of protective case 21 are separately manipulatable and may be positioned any desired distance apart/together).
Regarding Claim 9, Fraden discloses wherein the sensor is configured to receive emissions from a human body ([0027] “…one or more sensors of the external stimuli and supporting electronic circuits to perform additional functions for the phone… such components are: a thermopile detector for sensing thermal (infrared) radiation, air pressure sensor, UV light detector, signal converter, electromagnetic field detector, blood pulse oximeter, blood glucose meter, detector of a chemical composition, and many others…”) and to transmit a signal to the cell phone representative of the emissions ([0027] “The module, 9, communicates with the smartphone (not shown in FIG. 2) through the connector, 6, that is attached to the module via a wiring harness, 10, such as a flexible circuit board, e.g. The connector, 6, may be directly attached to a receptacle, 12, that allows electrical connection of the smartphone…”), the cell phone configured to receive the signal ([0027] “The module, 9, communicates with the smartphone (not shown in FIG. 2) through the connector, 6, that is attached to the module via a wiring harness, 10, such as a flexible circuit board, e.g. The connector, 6, may be directly attached to a receptacle, 12, that allows electrical connection of the smartphone…”) and to display an image of the received emissions (“phone display” side, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 12, Fraden discloses wherein the sensor is a glucose sensor (blood glucose meter, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 21, Fraden discloses wherein the separable sensor device is configured to allow for a user to position the sensor at an Abreu Brain Thermal Tunnel (ABTT) of the user and simultaneously view the display (both the sensor and the display are located on the same side of the device, therefore, the the separable sensor device is configured to allow for a user to position the sensor at an Abreu Brain Thermal Tunnel (ABTT) of the user and simultaneously view the display).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraden in view of US 20030132884 A1 to Ragner et al. (hereinafter, Ragner).
Fraden discloses the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for expressly disclosing wherein the separable sensor device further includes a rotating mechanism configured to position the separable sensor device at least in a first position alongside the cell phone and in a second position that is approximately perpendicular angle to the cell phone. However, Ragner teaches a phone 330 with a pivoting arm 332 with an electronic device 334 at its end ([0067]). Ranger teaches a first position alongside the cell phone (FIG. 7) and a second position attainable in the movement seen in FIG. 6 to make the pivoting arm perpendicular to the cell phone (FIG. 6).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the side extension 8 and associated sensor at the proximal first end to take the form of the rotating extendable arm, with the sensor located at the proximal first end (e.g., outer-most end) of the rotating extendable arm, as Ragner teaches at [0067] this would have allowed the user to stow the phone and associated electronic device, teaches at [0062] this would have protected the electronic device from being damaged, and further teaches at [0102] that to remove a protruding piece, like the side extension 8 of Fraden, would have protected the user and kept the components hidden. A skilled artisan would have recognized that the static side extension 8 would have been exposed and unprotected, and as motivated by Ragner, modifying the side extension 8 to be the rotatable arm of Ragner would have provided protection and comfort for the user of the device.
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 SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791