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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 7/4/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2022-0081976 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1A-C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 11-12, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 11 do not make grammatical sense and appear to be missing a word or multiple words.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the individual switches” in line 1, which it appears should instead recite “the individual switchings” to agree with the terminology used in claim 3, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the generating of the RC delay is performed is performed so that the delay capacitor is electrically connected to the one variable resistor to generate the RC delay” in lines 6-7, which it appears should instead recite “wherein the generating of the RC delay is performed so that the delay capacitor is electrically connected to the one variable resistor to generate the RC delay”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “comparing a first RC delay value is a multiplication of a value of the first variable resistor and a value of the first variable capacitor unit and a second RC delay value which is a multiplication of a value of the second variable resistor and a value of the second variable capacitor unit after performing the RC charging” in lines 5-8, which it appears should instead recite “comparing a first RC delay value which is a multiplication of a value of the first variable resistor and a value of the first variable capacitor unit and a second RC delay value which is a multiplication of a value of the second variable resistor and a value of the second variable capacitor unit after performing the RC charging”.
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 2, 9, and 11-18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the changed capacitance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the number of oversampling repetition times" in line 3 and “the bit position” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, claim 9 recites the abbreviation “CDAC” in 4. It is unclear what the abbreviated term stands for.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the changed capacitance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the one variable resistor” in line 7. It is unclear if this refers to the “first variable resistor” or the “second variable resistor”.
Claims 13-17 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the number of oversampling repetition times" in line 2 and “the bit position” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, claim 18 recites the abbreviation “CDAC” in 4. It is unclear what the abbreviated term stands for.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 19 recites the limitations “a distal portion including a snorkel having a size accommodated in a front of an eyeball” and “a proximal portion extended from the distal portion at an angle and having a shape accommodated in a part of a Schlemm's canal”, which positively recites part of a human, specifically a front of an eyeball and a part of a Schlemm’s canal. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a distal portion including a snorkel having a size configured to be accommodated in a front of an eyeball” and “a proximal portion extended from the distal portion at an angle and having a shape configured to be accommodated in a part of a Schlemm's canal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haffner et al. (US Publication No. 2005/0119636 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Haffner et al. discloses an implant for treating an eye disease, comprising:
a distal portion (32) including a snorkel having a size accommodated in a front of an eyeball (see Figures 8B and 9);
a proximal portion (33) extended from the distal portion at an angle and having a shape accommodated in a part of a Schlemm's canal (see Figures 5A, 8B, and 9 and [0080] – “In one embodiment, the trabecular shunt 31 comprises a hollow, elongated tubular element having an inlet section 32 and an outlet section 33, wherein the outlet section 33 may comprise two bifurcatable elements 34, 35 that are adapted to be bifurcated, positioned, and stabilized inside Schlemm's canal” and [0088] – “The angle between the inlet section and the outlet section is preferably between about 70 degrees and about 110 degrees so as to conform to the counter of Schlemm's canal”); and
a pressure sensing device (71, 75) (see Figures 8B and 9 and [0098] – “In another embodiment, the IOP sensor element 71 may be coupled to the trabecular shunt 31, as shown in FIG. 8B. This may permit implantation of both the trabecular shunt 31 and the pressure sensor in a single procedure. The sensor may be coupled by any means know by those of skill in the art. For example, the sensor may be coupled to the trabecular shunt 31 by adhesive, soldering, etc. In some embodiments, the sensor may be integrally formed with the trabecular shunt 31”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are allowed.
Claims 2, 9, and 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record includes:
Millar et al. (US 9,429,479 B2)
Park (US 2020/0201504 A1)
Zdeblick et al. (US 7,398,688 B2)
Millar et al. describes a pressure sensor having a half Wheatstone bridge including two variable resistors but does not describe variable capacitors connected to the half Wheatstone bridge and generating RC delays for the variable resistors, or an amplifier amplifying respective charging voltages charged after a time of the respective RC delays. Park describes a pressure sensor including variable resistors and variable capacitors but does not describe a half Wheatstone bridge unit, generating RC delays for the variable resistors, or an amplifier amplifying respective charging voltages charged after a time of the respective RC delays. Zdeblick et al. describes pressure sensor circuits including some circuits comprising Wheatstone bridges and variable resistors and other, separate circuits comprising capacitors but does not describe the combination of a half Wheatstone bridge unit including two variable resistors and a variable capacitor unit connected to the half Wheatstone bridge and generating RC delays for the variable resistors, or an amplifier amplifying respective charging voltages charged after a time of the respective RC delays. Thus, the prior art fails to disclose, either singly or in combination, a pressure sensing device comprising a half Wheatstone bridge unit including two variable resistors, a variable capacitor unit connected to the half Wheatstone bridge and generating RC delays for the variable resistors, and an amplifier amplifying respective charging voltages charged after a time of the respective RC delays.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (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 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791