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 27th, 2026, amended claims 7 and 11 are entered. Claim 9 is canceled, and claims 1-6 and 13-16 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 7-8 and 10-12 are currently 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 The objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.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 claim objection have been fully considered. The objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered. The claim interpretations are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
Although applicant has amended the claims, the claim limitations still use 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.
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, the claim limitations use generic placeholders (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”) that do not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. The terms “portion” and “member” are non-structural terms, having no specific structural meaning for performing the claimed function. The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” See MPEP 2181.
With respect to the second prong of this analysis, the claims merely state the underlying function without recitation of structure for performing that function. It is clear that “portion” and “member” are set forth by the function it performs as opposed to the specific structure, material, or acts that perform the function.
With respect to the third prong of this analysis, the claim limitations are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In order to determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, (1) the specification must provide a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure; (2) general and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure; and (3) the prior art provides evidence that the term has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function. Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1404 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2009) (precedential). There is no indication that “portion” or “member” denotes structure.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn 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 but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified in view of the amendment.
At Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “Jung fails to disclose this technical feature to avoid the influence of the capacitance component for a measurement of an accurate resistance value” regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jung teaches wherein the measurement portion measures the skin resistance after applying the DC voltage to the pair of electrode portions for a first period of time that is a prescribed period of time in a period before the skin resistance is measured and pauses a process of applying the DC voltage to the pair of electrode portions for a second period of time that is a prescribed period of time (Since skin conductivity G is measured by using a DC signal (frequency is 0, that is, w=0), measured skin conductivity G can be summarized as shown in Equation 3; [0049]; Examiner’s Note: The DC signal is used in order to measure skin resistance. Therefore, as best understood, in view of the 112(b) rejections below, Jung clearly teaches the measurement of skin resistance after applying the DC voltage in a first time period. Furthermore, the DC voltage will not be applied forever; thus, there will inherently be a second period of time wherein the DC voltage is stopped, or paused). Furthermore, it seems as though the Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed, as there is no recitation regarding “avoid[ing] the influence of the capacitance component” in the actual claim limitations themselves.
Further at Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that the claimed feature of Claim 7 is “not disclosed by Jung because in Jung the protrusions 133 and the base board completely overlap when viewed from the top”. Once again, it seems as though the Applicant is arguing more than what is claimed, as there is no recitation of “overlap” in Claim 7. Applicant further argues that “the area of a part in contact with the connection portion can never be smaller than an area of a part not in contact with the connection portion in an upper sides of a surface of the epidermis contact portion”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify that as best understood, the “area of a part in contact with the connection portion” can be equivalent to the portions of the protrusions 133 that are connected to the electrodes (and therefore baseboard 110). Therefore, this area is smaller than the “area of a part not in contact with the connection portion in an upper side of a surface of the epidermis contact portion, the upper side being a surface side of the epidermis contact portion not in contact with the epidermis”, which can be equivalent to the upper ends and side surfaces of protrusions 133, as shown in Figure 7B, which depicts the skin-electrode contact surface “CS” to include both the upper ends of the protrusions 133 as well as portions of the side surfaces of the protrusions 133.
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:
“measurement portion” in Claim 7: [0049] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein the measurement portion includes “a substrate 30, a switch 31, a memory 32, and a battery 33”
“connection portion” in Claims 7-8 and 10-12: [0038] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein the connection portion includes “an electrode contact portion 210, a connection portion 211, and a connector contact portion 212”
“conductive member” in Claim 10: [0061-0062] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein “a conductive member having breathability is inserted between the electrode and the connection portion will be described as another modified example of the configuration of the skin resistance measurement device with reference to FIGS. 6 to 8…the electrode portion 2b includes electrodes 20b, a connection portion 21b, and a conductive sponge 23b”
“insulation portion” in Claim 11: [0081-0082] of the Applicant’s Specification recites wherein “the electrode portion 2c and the epidermis 4 are electrically insulated by the adhesive tape 91c” and “skin resistance measurement device 1c includes an insulation portion (in this modified example, the adhesive tape 91c). The insulation portion (in this modified example, the adhesive tape 91c) electrically insulates the skin non-contact portion (in this modified example, the tape contact portion 202c) and the epidermis 4 in the region (in this modified example, the non-breathable region R7)”
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “each of the pair of electrode portions” in line 6, but should read “each electrode portion of the pair of electrode portions”
Claim 7 recites “that is in contact with the epidermis” in line 7, but should read “that is configured to be in contact with the epidermis”
Claim 7 recites “a structure in which drying of the epidermis is naturally performed” in lines 7-8, but should read “a structure which is configured to naturally perform drying of the epidermis”
Claim 11 recites “an epidermis non-contact portion not in contact with the epidermis” in lines 2-3, but should read “an epidermis non-contact portion that is configured to not be in contact with the epidermis”
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 7-8 and 10-12 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 7 recites “a measurement portion configured to measure skin resistance between the pair of electrode portions” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to whether the measurement portion is configured to measure skin resistance between each electrode portion of the pair of electrode portions, or if the measurement portion is configured to measure skin resistance between the pair of electrode portions and the epidermis. Clarification is requested.
The term “naturally” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “naturally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites “an area of a part in contact with the connection portion” in line 10. It is unclear as to what this limitation is referring to, as it could be introducing a completely new element, or referring to a part of a previously introduced element, such as a part of the epidermis contact portion, a part of the measurement portion, or a part of the electrode portion. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the measurement portion measures the skin resistance after applying the DC voltage to the pair of electrode portions for a first period of time that is a prescribed period of time in a period before the skin resistance is measured” in lines 17-19. It is unclear as to how the “first period of time” can be “a prescribed period of time in a period before the skin resistance is measured” if the skin resistance is measured for the “first period of time”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “a prescribed period of time” in lines 20-21. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the same element as the previously introduced “a prescribed period of time” in line 18, or a separate element. Clarification is requested.
The term “breathability” in claims 8 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “breathability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites “an epidermis non-contact portion” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a surface side of the epidermis contact portion not in contact with the epidermis” from Claim 7, or a separate element.
Claim 11 recites “an insulation portion configured to electrically insulate the epidermis non-contact portion and the epidermis in the overlapping region” in lines 6-8. It is unclear as to how the epidermis can be in the “overlapping region”, if the “overlapping region” is formed between the epidermis non-contact portion and the connection portion.
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 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0192911; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 7, Jung discloses a skin resistance measurement device (sensor for measuring skin conductivity; Abstract) comprising:
a pair of electrode portions (a pair of sensors 2 and 3; [0047]; electrode 120 includes a first electrode 121, and a second electrode 122; [0057]) configured to be provided on an epidermis (skin 1; [0047]); and
a measurement portion (uneven structure 130) configured to measure skin resistance between the pair of electrode portions (the first and second electrodes 121 and 122 are provided with the uneven structure 130. The connection area Ac is a region where the external circuit is connected thereto such that the electrical signal is input from the external circuit; [0058]),
wherein each of the pair of electrode portions includes an epidermis contact portion that is in contact with the epidermis (wherein each of the first and second electrodes 121 and 122 includes a measurement area As in contact with skin 1; [0057]; The uneven structure 130, namely the pillar structures and the Pt-black layer, has a structure in which when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity is brought into contact with skin 1, upper ends of the protrusions 133 of the uneven structure 130 come into contact with the surface of skin 1; [0062]) and has a structure in which drying of the epidermis is naturally performed (FIG. 12 is a cross-sectional view showing a plurality of through holes 140 formed at the sensor for measuring skin conductivity shown in FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 12, the through holes 140 are formed through the base board 110, the electrode 120, and the uneven structure 130 in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the base board 110. Accordingly, even when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity covers the surface of skin 1, air can flow through the through holes 140. Thus, the sweat SW permeating between the surface of skin 1 and the protrusions 133 can be evaporated; [0080]) and a connection portion (base board 110) configured to electrically connect the electrode portion and the measurement portion (The base board 110 is made of the flexible material, such that the sensor for measuring skin conductivity can be brought into close contact with skin 1. The base board 110 may be made of a Flexible PCB (FPCB) or the like. The base board 110 supports the electrode 120 provided on the surface of the base board 110, and serves as a body of the sensor for measuring skin conductivity; [0056]; Examiner’s Note: Figure 4 shows that the base 110 connects first electrode 121, second electrode 122, and uneven structure 130),
an area of a part in contact with the connection portion is smaller than an area of a part not in contact with the connection portion in an upper side of a surface of the epidermis contact portion, the upper side being a surface side of the epidermis contact portion not in contact with the epidermis (The uneven structure 130, namely the pillar structures and the Pt-black layer, has a structure in which when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity is brought into contact with skin 1, upper ends of the protrusions 133 of the uneven structure 130 come into contact with the surface of skin 1…because the area of skin-electrode contact surface CS shown in FIG. 7B is larger than that of skin-electrode contact surface CS shown in FIG. 3B, skin-electrode contact resistance Rct of the sensor for measuring skin conductivity (FIG. 7B) according to the embodiment of the present invention is lower than that of the conventional sensor for measuring skin conductivity (FIG. 3B); [0062-0065]; Examiner’s Note: As best understood, the “area of a part in contact with the connection portion” can be equivalent to the portions of the protrusions 133 that are connected to the electrodes (and therefore baseboard 110). Therefore, this area is smaller than the “area of a part not in contact with the connection portion in an upper side of a surface of the epidermis contact portion, the upper side being a surface side of the epidermis contact portion not in contact with the epidermis”, which can be equivalent to the upper ends and side surfaces of protrusions 133, as shown in Figure 7B, which depicts the skin-electrode contact surface “CS” to include both the upper ends of the protrusions 133 as well as portions of the side surfaces of the protrusions 133),
the measurement portion is configured to measure skin resistance between the pair of electrode portions by applying a direct current (DC) voltage to the pair of electrode portions (Since skin conductivity G is measured by using a DC signal (frequency is 0, that is, w=0), measured skin conductivity G can be summarized as shown in Equation 3; [0049]), and
the measurement portion measures the skin resistance after applying the DC voltage to the pair of electrode portions for a first period of time that is a prescribed period of time in a period before the skin resistance is measured and pauses a process of applying the DC voltage to the pair of electrode portions for a second period of time that is a prescribed period of time (Since skin conductivity G is measured by using a DC signal (frequency is 0, that is, w=0), measured skin conductivity G can be summarized as shown in Equation 3; [0049]; Examiner’s Note: The DC signal is used in order to measure skin resistance. Therefore, as best understood, in view of the 112(b) rejections above, Jung clearly teaches the measurement of skin resistance after applying the DC voltage in a first time period. Furthermore, the DC voltage will not be applied forever; thus, there will inherently be a second period of time wherein the DC voltage is stopped, or paused).
Regarding Claim 8, Jung discloses wherein the connection portion has breathability (a plurality of through holes 140 formed at the sensor for measuring skin conductivity shown in FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 12, the through holes 140 are formed through the base board 110, the electrode 120, and the uneven structure 130 in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the base board 110. Accordingly, even when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity covers the surface of skin 1, air can flow through the through holes 140. Thus, the sweat SW permeating between the surface of skin 1 and the protrusions 133 can be evaporated; [0080]; Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 10, Jung discloses wherein a conductive member having breathability (a plurality of through holes 140 formed at the sensor for measuring skin conductivity shown in FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 12, the through holes 140 are formed through the base board 110, the electrode 120, and the uneven structure 130 in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the base board 110. Accordingly, even when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity covers the surface of skin 1, air can flow through the through holes 140. Thus, the sweat SW permeating between the surface of skin 1 and the protrusions 133 can be evaporated; [0080]; Figure 12) is inserted between the electrode portion and the connection portion (the base board 110 on a carrier board 150, forming the electrode 120 on the base board 110 by forming and patterning a conductive material…the conductive material is formed to form the electrode 120 on the base board 110. For example, the conductive material may be a metal layer, wherein a Ti layer 120 a may be formed on the base board 110 to a thickness of about 300 Å, and an Au layer 120 b may be formed on the Ti layer 120 a to a thickness of about 1000 Å; [0087-0089]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Raguin et al (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0113952; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 11, Jung discloses wherein the electrode portion further includes an epidermis non-contact portion not in contact with the epidermis (The uneven structure 130, namely the pillar structures and the Pt-black layer, has a structure in which when the sensor for measuring skin conductivity is brought into contact with skin 1, upper ends of the protrusions 133 of the uneven structure 130 come into contact with the surface of skin 1; [0062]; Examiner’s Note: The epidermis non-contact portion not in contact with the epidermis is equivalent to the areas of the electrode portions that exclude the upper ends of the protrusions 133, as that is the portion that does contact the epidermis), wherein the epidermis non-contact portion and the connection portion (base board 110) have a mutually overlapping region (Figures 7A-7B).
Jung fails to disclose wherein the skin resistance measurement device further comprises an insulation portion configured to electrically insulate the epidermis non-contact portion and the epidermis in the overlapping region.
In a similar technical field, Raguin teaches an apparatus using electrodes disposed along a platen surface (Abstract), further comprising an insulation portion configured to electrically insulate the epidermis non-contact portion and the epidermis in the overlapping region (The electrode 602 e is patterned on surface 501, but then preferentially overcoated with an insulating layer 615. In this manner, although portions of electrode 602 e inside of boundary 612 can be touched by a finger, portions of the electrode or electrical lead outside of boundary 612 are insulated…thus insulating material is provided over at least the leads and provides openings for the electrodes (preferably overcoated as shown), and a subject's fingers can contact the electrodes via the openings; [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the insulating teachings of Raguin into the invention of Jung in order to provide insulating material to portions of the electrode while also enabling such that fingers can contact the electrodes via such opening when fingers are presented to the plate or pad, or the insulating material covers both the electrodes and their leads (Raguin [0019]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Kuramori et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,195,284; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, Jung fails to disclose a detection circuit configured to detect whether or not the electrode portion has been connected to the connection portion.
In a similar technical field, Kuramori teaches a bioelectrical information acquisition device and inappropriately-attached-electrode identifying method (Abstract), comprising a detection circuit (judgment section 22) configured to detect whether or not the electrode portion has been connected to the connection portion (a judgment section 22 for measuring an impedance between arbitrary two electrodes of the electrodes so as to judge whether the attachment state of each electrode is appropriate or not, thereby identifying an electrode in which inappropriate attachment is occurring, an inappropriateness notifying section 24 for applying a voltage across arbitrary two electrodes, to thereby give an electrical stimulus to the driver 12 (the electrical stimulus being mild enough that does not disturb the driving operation of the driver 12 while strong enough that the driver 12 can recognize the electrodes across which the voltage has been applied), and a control section 26 connected to each of the myopotential measuring section 20, the judgment section 22, and the inappropriateness notifying section 24, for controlling an operation of each of the sections; Column 8 Lines 21-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the attachment state teachings of Kuramori into the invention of Jung in order to ensure an appropriate attachment state of the electrode in order to ensure sufficient measurement accuracy (Kuramori Column 1 Lines 51-58).
Conclusion
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