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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on March 24, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/24/2026 are accepted. In view of the drawings filed on 3/24/2026 the objections made against the drawings in the office action of 1/14/2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendment filed on 3/24/2026 amending claims 1 and 8 to clarify the language the objections made against the claims in the office action of 1/14/2026 have been withdrawn.
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “configured to simulate --which should recite similar to –configured to stimulate-- in order to fix an inadvertent typographical error. Claim 9 directly depends from claim 8 and is also objected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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 9 recites “wherein the first region and the second region of the brain are contiguous, and a first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a first haptic stimulation to the first region of the brain and a second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a second haptic stimulation to the second region of the brain, wherein the first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and the second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator are contiguous.” which provides limitations related to first and second regions of the brain being assigned different haptic stimulation from first and second portions of the limbs which positively recites a human organism, i.e. first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator as being part of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system. To overcome the rejection it is suggested to amend the claim to include what structural elements of the haptic sensory feedback system are being further limited and to amend the claim so that it does not positively recite regions of the brain and/or portions of the limb.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 3/24/2026 amending claims 1 and 6 to clarify the language the 112 rejections made against the claims 1 and 6 in the office action of 1/14/2026 have been withdrawn.
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 and 9 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 “including but not limited to at least one of piezo actuators, linear motors, rotary motors, smart materials, haptic speakers, piezoactuators, piezo yarn, piezoelectric fibers, or flexible piezoelectric membranes.”, the claim recites “including but not limited to at least one of piezo actuators, linear motors, rotary motors, smart materials, haptic speakers, piezoactuators, piezo yarn, piezoelectric fibers” and then recites “or flexible piezoelectric membranes.” which is unclear on exactly what applicant is attempting to encompass since the language “including but not limited to at least one” is used followed by “or” phrases clarification is required. Claim 9 recites “wherein the first region and the second region of the brain are contiguous, and a first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a first haptic stimulation to the first region of the brain and a second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a second haptic stimulation to the second region of the brain, wherein the first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and the second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator are contiguous.” It is unclear what further structural limitations of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system applicant is attempting to encompass since claim 9 appears to include limitations related to the regions of the brain and first and second anatomic regions of the limb of the operator and does not provide any further structural limitations of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system, clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowed. Claim 8 is objected to, see claim objections above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, in view of the art that is relevant to the claimed invention the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, within the context of the other claim limitations, a wearable haptic sensor feedback system that includes a processor system adapted to receive the first set of physiological signals and the second set of event signals and configured to provide the operator with somatosensory tactile and force feedback along the first section as a set of real time spatial haptic sensations related to the first set of physiological signals and to provide the operator with somatosensory tactile and force feedback along the second section as a set of event haptic sensations related to the second set of event signals, and an operator sensor system configured to sense information related to peripheral nerve recruitment and relevant motor responses of the operator during the interventional cardiology procedure, wherein the sense information from the operator sensor system is utilized by a processor system to evaluate attention and reaction of the operator during the procedure and to generate indications of changes in either attention or reaction of the operator during the interventional cardiology procedure. Regarding claim 8, in view of the art that is relevant to the claimed invention the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, within the context of the other claim limitations, a wearable haptic sensor feedback system that includes a processor system is configured to provide the operator with somatosensory tactile and force feedback with the set of real time spatial haptic sensations related to the first set of physiological signals stimulating afferent neurologic impulses to a first region of the brain of the operator, and the set of event haptic sensations related to the second set of event signals stimulating afferent neurologic impulses to a different second region of the brain of the operator, whereby an increased ability of the operator to form a real time haptic representational map of a heart of the patient during the interventional cardiology procedure is increased, respectively in combination with the other claim limitations. The closest prior art includes US 2013/0321262 to Schecter (previously cited) which discloses a haptic feedback system but does not teach or reasonably suggest a processor configured with the specifics as claimed within claims 1 and claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 9 has been amended to address the rejection, see pg. 7 of response filed 3/24/2026, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the 101 rejection has been modified in view of the claim amendments. As stated above, claim 9 recites “wherein the first region and the second region of the brain are contiguous, and a first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a first haptic stimulation to the first region of the brain and a second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a second haptic stimulation to the second region of the brain, wherein the first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and the second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator are contiguous.” which provides limitations related to first and second regions of the brain being assigned different haptic stimulation from first and second portions of the limbs which appears to positively recite a human organism, i.e. first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator as being part of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system.
Rejection Under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to claim 2 and 9. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to address the Section 112 rejection, see pg. 7 of response filed 3/24/2026, however regarding claims 2 and 9 the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the 112 rejection has been withdraw for claims 1 and 6 in view of the claim amendments. It is further noted that the 112 rejection against claims 2 and 9 have modified in view of the claim amendments. As stated within the rejection, claim 2 recites “including but not limited to at least one of piezo actuators, linear motors, rotary motors, smart materials, haptic speakers, piezoactuators, piezo yarn, piezoelectric fibers, or flexible piezoelectric membranes.”, the claim recites “including but not limited to at least one of piezo actuators, linear motors, rotary motors, smart materials, haptic speakers, piezoactuators, piezo yarn, piezoelectric fibers” and then recites “or flexible piezoelectric membranes.” which is unclear on exactly what applicant is attempting to encompass since the language “including but not limited to at least one” is used followed by “or” phrases clarification is required. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the first region and the second region of the brain are contiguous, and a first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a first haptic stimulation to the first region of the brain and a second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator is configured to provide a second haptic stimulation to the second region of the brain, wherein the first anatomic portion of the limb of the operator and the second anatomic portion of the limb of the operator are contiguous.” It is unclear what further structural limitations of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system applicant is attempting to encompass since claim 9 appears to include limitations related to the regions of the brain and first and second anatomic regions of the limb of the operator and does not provide any further structural limitations regarding elements of the wearable haptic sensory feedback system, clarification is required.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM 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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached at (571)270-3061. 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.
/JG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796