DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-12, 14-20 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 1, 12, 14 recite the limitation “measuring a transmission current for application of the alert signal at the transmission electrode”. However, the alert signal is already applied at the transmission electrode, as claimed in the limitation “applying an alert signal to the transmission electrode”. It is not clear if there is a condition for applying the alert signal, by measuring a transmission current, or the alert signal is simply applied, as claimed? The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “transmission electrode” in claims 1, 12-14 is used by the claim to mean “transceiver electrode,” while the accepted meaning is “a circuit component used for transmitting and not receiving.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The claim limitation “determine whether the presence of alert response signal has been applied … by the second wearable device in dependence on a measurement of a variation of a transmission current at the transmission electrode …”. The claimed limitation describes a process of receiving the response signal, by the transmission electrode. The claimed invention uses the “transmission electrode” for transmitting and receiving. The term of art for an electrode used both for transmission and reception is a transceiver.
Terminology used in claim 13 is different, however, the same concept is claimed as detailed above.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “reception electrode” in claims 1, 12-14 is used by the claim to mean “transceiver electrode,” while the accepted meaning is “a circuit component used for receiving and not transmitting.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The claim limitation “apply an alert response signal to the reception electrode, … and … determine whether the alert response signal has been applied to the reception electrode by the second wearable device in dependence on a measurement of a variation of a transmission current at the transmission electrode …”. The claimed limitation describes a process of transmitting the response alert signal, by the reception electrode.
Terminology used in claim 13 is different, however, the same concept is claimed as detailed above.
Claims 2-11, 15-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The claimed transmission electrode is not configured to receive the alert response signal, it can only infer the presence of the alert response signal based upon an effect on the transmission signal. There is no reception of a signal by the transmission electrode.
Response 1: The “effect on the transmission signal” at the transmission electrode of the first wearable device, due to the alert response signal from the second wearable device, is because the transmission circuit detected the response alert signal from the second wearable device. The Applicant seems to assume that the first wearable device detects the presence of the alert response signal from the second wearable device without receiving the response alert signal. The current application, as described in [0139] of the published application clearly indicates that “a parasitic return path 26 completes the circuit.” Wherein [fig. 9] indicates that the capacitive parasitic return path is connected between the transmission electrode 101, as described in [0143] as “the buffer A1 in FIG. 9, representing the transmission electrode in contact with the user’s skin”, of the first wearable device to the reiver circuit 103 of the second wearable device.
The originally filed disclosure describes the use of the “transmission electrode” to receive a signal.
Argument 2: Figure 9 of the instant application illustrates a system comprising both the transmission and reception electrodes which are located in separate respective devices labeled patch 101 and receiver 103. The Examiner misinterprets portion 102 as a circuit component of the apparatus.
Response 2: The Examiner is not interpreting the tissue model 102 as a circuit component of the apparatus. The Examiner is interpreting both the transmission electrode 101, as detailed in [0143], and receiver 103 as a transceiver, based on the description provided in the originally filed disclosure and the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure and the claimed invention in claims 1, 12-14 provides a description of both the electrodes as electrodes used for both transmission and reception.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688