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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on March 30th, 2026, amended claims 19, 24-25, 28, 30, 32, 45, 47, and 53-54 are entered. Claims 20-22 and 46 are canceled. Claims 19, 23-34, 45, and 47-54 are currently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the abstract objection have been fully considered. The objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered. Although the replacement sheets are now of sufficient quality to permit examination, Figures 4-10 are still objected to because they fail to show the labels for the x and y-axes for the graphs. Therefore, the drawing objections have been maintained.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. Although a majority of the claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment, the objection of claim 34 has not been addressed. Therefore, the objection of claim 34 has been maintained.
Claim 34 was previously objected to because it was indicated as “(Original)”, followed by “Claims 34-44 (Canceled)”. The Applicant has failed to address this objection in the arguments and has not amended Claim 34 or the claim numbers that are indicated as “(Canceled)”. Clarification is requested, as it is impossible for Claim 34 to recite its original claim limitations while also being canceled.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. Although a majority of the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment, the rejections of claims 19, 24, 27, 51, and 52 have not been addressed. Therefore, the rejections of claims 19, 24, 27, 51, and 52 have been maintained, and further clarified in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the labels for the x and y-axes for the graphs in Figures 4-10. Any detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claim 34 is currently indicated as “(Original)”. Claims 34-44 are then indicated as “(Canceled)”. Therefore, Claim 34 is objected to as the claim currently recites its original claim limitations while also being indicated as canceled. Clarification is requested.
For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret that Claim 34 is still pending and that Applicant meant to recite “Claims 35-44 (Canceled)” instead.
Claims 19, 27, 45, 51, and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “encircles” in line 19, but should read “encircling”
Claim 19 recites “bladder; said step of modifying includes” in line 30, but should read “bladder; wherein said step of modifying includes” or “bladder; said step of modifying including”
Claim 19 recites “said first and second low pass filters have a different cut-off frequency” in line 33, but should read “wherein said first low pass filter and said second low pass filter have different cut-off frequencies from each other”
Claim 27 recites “limb, at least” in line 3, but should read “limb, the at least” or “limb, said at least”
Claim 45 recites “encircles” in line 48, but should read “encircling”
Claim 45 recites “said body” in line 49, but should read “said limb”
Claim 45 recites “bladder; said step of modifying includes” in line 58, but should read “bladder; wherein said step of modifying includes” or “bladder; said step of modifying including”
Claim 45 recites “said first and second low pass filters have a different cut-off frequency” in line 61, but should read “wherein said first low pass filter and said second low pass filter have different cut-off frequencies from each other”
Claim 51 recites “limb, at least” in line 3, but should read “limb, the at least” or “limb, said at least”
Claim 52 recites “limb, at least” in line 3, but should read “limb, the at least” or “limb, said at least”
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 19, 23-34, 45, and 47-54 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 19 recites “a portion of a body of said user's limb” in line 18. It is unclear as to whether this is referring to the previously introduced “a portion of a user’s limb” from line 6, or a separate element.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said first low pass filter" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although Claim 19 recites “an electronic filter arrangement that first and second low pass filters” in line 31, Examiner notes that in line 31, the term “filters” seems to be used as a verb. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests that the claim limitation in line 31 be amended to recite “an electronic filter arrangement, wherein said electronic filter arrangement includes a first low pass filter and a second low pass filter”, or something of the like, which would provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation "said first low pass filter" in line 32.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said second low pass filter" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although Claim 19 recites “an electronic filter arrangement that first and second low pass filters” in line 31, Examiner notes that in line 31, the term “filters” seems to be used as a verb. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests that the claim limitation in line 31 be amended to recite “an electronic filter arrangement, wherein said electronic filter arrangement includes a first low pass filter and a second low pass filter”, or something of the like, which would provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation "said second low pass filter" in line 32.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites “at least a portion of the user’s limb, at least a portion of the user’s limb” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this is referring to the previously introduced “at least a portion of a user’s limb” from line 6 of Claim 19, “a portion of a body of said user's limb” from line 18 of Claim 19, or a separate element.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "said first low pass filter" in line 60. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although Claim 45 recites “an electronic filter arrangement that first and second low pass filters” in line 59, Examiner notes that in line 59, the term “filters” seems to be used as a verb. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests that the claim limitation in line 59 be amended to recite “an electronic filter arrangement, wherein said electronic filter arrangement includes a first low pass filter and a second low pass filter”, or something of the like, which would provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation "said first low pass filter" in line 60.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "said second low pass filter" in line 60. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although Claim 45 recites “an electronic filter arrangement that first and second low pass filters” in line 59, Examiner notes that in line 59, the term “filters” seems to be used as a verb. In order to overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests that the claim limitation in line 59 be amended to recite “an electronic filter arrangement, wherein said electronic filter arrangement includes a first low pass filter and a second low pass filter”, or something of the like, which would provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation "said second low pass filter" in line 60.
Claim 51 recites “at least a portion of the user’s limb, at least a portion of the user’s limb” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this is referring to the previously introduced “at least a portion of a user’s limb” from line 6 of Claim 45, or a separate element.
Claim 52 recites “at least a portion of the user’s limb, at least a portion of the user’s limb” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this is referring to the previously introduced “at least a portion of a user’s limb” from line 6 of Claim 45, or a separate element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 23-34 and 47-54 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.
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 CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights