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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/23/2023 and 7/30/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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: “security arrangement” in claim 61, “control unit” in claim 65, “sensor unit” in claim 66, “measurement unit” in in claim 67, “monitoring unit” in claim 68, “stimulator unit” in claim 72, and “counter member” in claim 74.
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.
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.
Based on Applicant’s specification, a “security arrangement” includes processors and sensors (paragraph 13) and may include brackets and support structures (paragraph 29) and a control unit (paragraph 37).
Based on Applicant’s specification, a “sensor unit” includes sensors appropriate for determining positions, such as gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, inertial sensors, global positioning systems, cameras (paragraphs 46-50).
Based on Applicant’s specification, there no structure recited for “measurement unit” and “monitoring unit”.
Based on Applicant’s specification, a “control unit” includes computers or computing devices with a processor (paragraphs 37-38).
Based on Applicant’s specification, there is no structure recited for “stimulator unit”.
Based on Applicant’s specification, a “counter member” is something that can count pulses and can comprise a splitter or plug (paragraph 72). It is not clear how a splitter or plug can perform the claimed counting function.
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 61-88 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.
Claims 61 and 76 recite the limitation “security policy” in line 7. It is not clear what structure or function this is supposed to be.
Claims 62-75 and 77-88 inherit the deficiencies of claims 61 or 76 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 67 recites the limitation “a sum of the first and the magnetic flux exceeding a predefined threshold” in lines 4-5. This appears to be missing some words, which makes the limitation unclear.
Claim limitations “measurement unit configured to…” in lines 1-2 of claim 67, “monitoring unit configured to…” in lines 1-2 of claim 68, “stimulator unit configured to…” in line 1 of claim 72, and “counter member” in claim 74 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 77 recites the limitation "the position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 82 recites the limitation “a sum of the first and the magnetic flux exceeding a predefined threshold” in lines 3-4. This appears to be missing some words, which makes the limitation unclear.
Claim 88 recites the limitation “a security policy” in line 7. It is not clear if this is a new instance or refers to the security policy mentioned in claim 76, line 7. It is also not clear what structure or function this is supposed to be.
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) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0016280 (Aliverti et al., hereinafter Aliverti).
In regards to claim 61, Aliverti discloses a stimulation device to stimulate a first nerve and a second nerve in a human or animal body for activating a target tissue in the human or animal body (see para. 50, 51; Fig. 1 (10,11), 3(14)), comprising:
a first coil unit configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field (see para. 50, 51; Fig. 1(10), 3(14));
a second coil unit configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the second nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field (see para. 50, 51; Fig. 1(11), 3(14)); and
a security arrangement (paragraph 79 discloses a controller with feedback mechanisms that require a computing device and processor while paragraph 25 and 51 discloses the use of electrical circuits) configured to ensure compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first nerve by means of the first coil unit and of the second nerve by means of the second coil unit (see para. 50, 51, 64, 65, 79; Fig. 3(14); without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0024882 (Chornenky et al., hereinafter Chornenky).
In regards to claim 61, Chornenky discloses a stimulation device (see figure 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 26A-B; paragraphs 116-183) to stimulate a first nerve and a second nerve in a human or animal body for activating a target tissue in the human or animal body, comprising:
a first coil unit (1005, 1301, 1705, 1807, 16, 2603) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field;
a second coil unit (1006, 1302, 1706, 1808, 18, 2604) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the second nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field; and
a security arrangement (several computerized controllers for the figures are disclosed in paragraphs 116-183 that control the application of stimulation to the coils) configured to ensure compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first nerve by means of the first coil unit and of the second nerve by means of the second coil unit (without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0255346 (Ghiron).
In regards to claim 61, Ghiron discloses a stimulation device to stimulate a first nerve and a second nerve in a human or animal body for activating a target tissue in the human or animal body (figures 1 and 3-11A-H; paragraphs 76-287; note that the embodiments have more than one coil), comprising:
a first coil unit (310, 410, 510,610, 710 a-b, 810, 910, 1010, 1110) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field;
a second coil unit (320, 420, 520, 620, 720 a-b, 820, 920, 1020, 1120) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the second nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field; and
a security arrangement configured to ensure compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first nerve by means of the first coil unit and of the second nerve by means of the second coil unit (paragraphs 63-74; computer software running on a processor controls the device operation based on sensor input which meets the security arrangement limitations. Without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
Claim(s) 61, 63-67, 69-72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, and 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0185042 (Schneider et al., hereinafter Schneider).
In regards to claim 61, Schneider discloses a stimulation device (see figures 5A-B, 9A-B, 12A-B, 14, 15; paragraphs 145-187, 211-220) to stimulate a first nerve and a second nerve in a human or animal body for activating a target tissue in the human or animal body, comprising:
a first coil unit (coil 1, 9400, 700, 1135) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field (figure 5 shows coil positioned at a human body);
a second coil unit (coil 2, 9410, 710, 1145) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the second nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field (figure 5 shows coil positioned at a human body); and
a security arrangement configured to ensure compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first nerve by means of the first coil unit and of the second nerve by means of the second coil unit (controller and position sensors determine location of TMS magnets with feedback for adjusting TMS coils – paragraphs 44, 62-65, 76-78, 236, and 270. Without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
In regards to claims 63, 64, and 69 Schneider discloses the limitation of claim 61. In addition, Schneider states in paragraphs 139-140 that the two coils have windings are wrapped in opposite directions with a cross over portion (support structure) that connects the coils. In addition, as noted in paragraph 145 the position shown in figure 5B makes the pulse from the coils cancel and make the sum of the fields be about zero (coils are placed on opposite sides of the head and the average diameter of an adult head is 52-58 cm, which meets the limitations of claim 64), which requires the current to flow through the windings in opposite directions. The coil position in figure 5B would also make the first and second coil units have an angle between the axis of the first coil unit and the axis of the second coil unit be 30 degrees or less. In addition, as shown in figures 2 and 3, the circuit configuration of the two coils is in a series configuration.
In regards to claim 65, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 61. Due to the 112 issues about the security policy, Schneider would meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 66, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 61. Schneider further discloses the use of position sensors for determining positional information of the electromagnets and the subject’s body as they are moved (paragraphs 44-49, 62, 229-250), which would move the coils relative to each other and would be within a pre-defined range as the TMS units move along a track.
In regards to claims 67, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 61. Due to the 112 issues of the claims, Schneider would meet the limitations of the claims. The and/or recitation only requires one of the limitations to be met and the 112 issues allow Schneider to meet the limitation.
In regards to claim 70, Schneider discloses the limitation of claim 61. In addition, as noted in paragraph 214 and figure 15, each of the coil units are on turning ring, which makes them individually positionable.
In regards to claim 71, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 61. In addition, because Schneider is a TMS device, the coil units would be configured to activate by supplying stimulation current to the first coil and second coil units and would have impulses generated by one current. Due to the “and/or” in the claim, only one of the limitations mentioned have to be met to meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 72, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 61. In addition, due to the 112 issue of the claim and that Schneider is a TMS device, there would naturally be a source that induces currents in the first coil and second coil units.
In regards to claims 76 and 77, Schneider describes control and coordination of transcranial magnetic stimulation electromagnets (title and abstract; see figures 5A-B, 9A-B, 12A-B, 14, 15; paragraphs 145-187, 211-220). Schneider shows the followings steps:
positioning a first coil (coil 1, 9400, 700, 1135) unit at the first nerve of the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field (see figure 5A-B show positioning of the first coil at a first nerve of a human body);
positioning a second coil (coil 2, 9410, 710, 1145) unit at the second nerve of the human or animal body by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field (see figure 5 A-B show positioning of the second coil at a second nerve of the human body); and
ensuring compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first and second nerves by means of the first coil unit and the second coil unit (controller and position sensors determine location of TMS magnets with feedback and adjusts the positions of TMS coils – paragraphs 44, 62-65, 76-78, 236, and 270. Without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
Due to the “and/or” in the claim, only one of the limitations mentioned have to be met to meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claims 79 and 80, Schneider discloses the limitation of claim 76. In addition, Schneider states in paragraphs 139-140 that the two coils have windings are wrapped in opposite directions with a cross over portion (support structure). In addition, as noted in paragraph 145 the position shown in figure 5B makes the pulse from the coils cancel and make the sum of the fields be about zero (coils are placed on opposite sides of the head and the average diameter of an adult head is 52-58 cm, which meets the limitations of claim 80), which requires the current to flow through the windings in opposite directions. The coil position in figure 5B would also make the first and second coil units have an angle between the axis of the first coil unit and the axis of the second coil unit be 30 degrees or less. In addition, as shown in figures 2 and 3, the circuit configuration of the two coils is in a series configuration.
In regards to claim 81, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 76. Due to the 112 issues about the security policy, Schneider would meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 82, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 76. Schneider discloses the measuring of the magnetic field flux of the coils in figures 6 and 7 (Paragraph 169). Due to the 112 issues of the claims and the and/or recitation, Schneider to meets the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 84, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 76. In addition, paragraph 214 describes individually positioning the coil arrays (paragraph 214). Due to the “and/or” in the claim, only one of the limitations mentioned have to be met to meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 88, Schneider discloses the limitations of claim 76, Schneider further discloses the stimulation device used (see figures 5A-B, 9A-B, 12A-B, 14, 15; paragraphs 145-187, 211-220) to stimulate a first nerve and a second nerve in a human or animal body for activating a target tissue in the human or animal body, comprising:
a first coil unit (coil 1, 9400, 700, 1135) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the first nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic first field (figure 5 shows coil positioned at a human body);
a second coil unit (coil 2, 9410, 710, 1145) configured to be positioned at the human or animal body to stimulate the second nerve by applying an electric or electro-magnetic second field (figure 5 shows coil positioned at a human body); and
a security arrangement configured to ensure compliance with a security policy during stimulation of the first nerve by means of the first coil unit and of the second nerve by means of the second coil unit (controller and position sensors determine location of TMS magnets with feedback for adjusting TMS coils – paragraphs 44, 62-65, 76-78, 236, and 270. Without specifics on the “security policy” any arrangement of the coils would meet the limitations of the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 62 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0185042 (Schneider et al., hereinafter Schneider) as applied to claim 61 and 76 above, and further in view of US 2006/0094924 (Riehl).
In regards to claim 62 and 78, Schneider discloses the limitation of claims 61 and 76 but do not state that the security policy involves cancelling an electric or electro-magnetic field in a region offset the first and second nerve when the first coil and second units are applying magnetic fields. In a related area, Riehl discloses systems and methods to reduce discomfort using nerve stimulation (see title and abstract). Of note is paragraph 49 which discloses the use of another coil during stimulation that applies its own magnetic field to cancel a portion of the magnetic field made by the stimulation device in order to maintain magnetic strength at the region of therapy while diminishing magnetic field strength in areas that should not be stimulated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Schneider to include the step of cancelling magnetic fields as taught by Riehl in order to maintain magnetic strength at the region of therapy while diminishing magnetic field strength in areas that should not be stimulated.
Claim(s) 68 and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0185042 (Schneider et al., hereinafter Schneider) as applied to claims 61 and 76 above, and further in view of US 5,743,844 (Tepper et al., hereinafter Tepper).
In regards to claim 83, Schneider discloses the limitations of claims 61 and 76 above but does not disclose a monitoring unit that is used in the step of detecting faults in the coil units. In a related area, Tepper discloses a pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMF) system and method (title and abstract) that uses circuitry (monitoring unit) to detect faults in the PEMF system circuits (column 8, lines 35-column 9, line 45) that determines if there are issues in the coil circuitry. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method Schneider to detect faults at the coils unit as taught by Tepper in order to determine if there are issues in the coil circuitry.
Claim(s) 74 and 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0185042 (Schneider et al., hereinafter Schneider) as applied to claims 61 and 76, and further in view of US 2018/0200503 (Ryaby et al., hereinafter Ryaby).
In regards to claims 74 and 86, Schneider discloses the limitations of claims 61 and 76 but does not state the presence of a counter member that counts pulses for the first and second coils units. In a related area, Ryaby discloses a pulsed electromagnetic field device for stimulating musculoskeletal tissues (title and abstract). Paragraph 49 states the use of counter that counts the number of times a coil is energized against a threshold where the threshold is used to execute a different treatment regimen. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Schneider to include a counter that counts pulses as taught by Ryaby in order to determine when to transition to different treatment regimens. Note that without knowing the security policy Schneider and Ryaby would meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 75 and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0185042 (Schneider et al., hereinafter Schneider) as applied to claim 61 and 76 above, and further in view of US 2015/0360045 (Fischell et al., hereinafter Fischell).
In regards to claims 75 and 87, Schneider discloses the limitations of claims 61 and 76 but does not state the presence of button used to operate the first and second coil units to induce the pulses or the idea of manually operating the coil units to induce the electromagnetic field. In a related area, Fischell discloses an electrical pulse generator to create magnetic pulses for treatments (title and abstract). Of note is paragraphs 58-61 which details the operator of the device using a button to manually begin or stop treatment of the patient with the unique advantage of being readily adjustable to optimize treatment for different patients and treatment locations. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Schneider to include a button that allows for manual operation as taught by Fischell in order to be readily adjustable to optimize treatment for different patients and treatment locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 73 and 85 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:
In regards to claim 73, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device, as claimed by Applicant, that includes a first and second sensing formation having two temperature sensors and the first coil units includes the first sensing formation and the second coil unit includes the second sensing formation and where the security policy comprises current consumptions of the sensors being within a predefined threshold range of current consumption.
In regards to claim 85, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method, as claimed by Applicant, that includes providing two temperature sensors each to the first coil unit and the second coil unit includes the second sensing formation and where the security policy comprises current consumptions of the sensors being within a predefined threshold range of current consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791