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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-10 contain a number of grammatical errors include (but not limited to) lack of punctuation and proper paragraph indentation. This creates grammatical errors leading to clarity issues where it becomes unclear where a specific claim limitation ends and another limitation begins.
For example, in lines 13-16 of claim 1, is the working electrode “decorated” with a reference electrode and a counter electrode? While Examiner assumes the reference and counter electrode portion to refer to a separate limitation, Applicant is requested to go over the claims and use proper punctuation and indentations so that each limitation is easily understood.
Also, as currently constructed, it is unclear if paragraph 4 of claim 1 is positively recited as there is no clear use of paragraphs of semi-colons. 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 1-10 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 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “the three parts of the patches” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner further notes that, as best understood, it is the module that has three parts, not the patches.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “wherein each piece of the electrocardio electrode paper-based patches [[(2)]] forms an electrocardio electrode”. It is unclear if both pieces are forming 1 electrode or if two separate electrodes are formed from each separate piece.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “a conductive hydrogel material through dripping on the paper-based base layer” in line 12-13. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same hydrogel material recites in lines 10-12 or a different material.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “electrical signals thereof” in line 21. It is unclear what “thereof” stands for in this context. Electrical signals from the “three electrode system”? Or from the electro cardio electrodes?
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “arranged on a plane” in line 26. It is unclear which “plane” Applicant is referring to – a different plane or the plane recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “the rest of the plane” in line 27. It is unclear which “plane” Applicant is referring to – a different plane or the plane recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 4 (5 by dependency) recites “and/or”. The scope of the claim is unclear. It is further unclear how a layer can be both a biochemical reagent and a catalytic material. From the dependent claims both the reagent and material seem to exclusive things.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrade et al. US 20200060541 A1
Martinez et al. US 20200297255 A1
Wang et al. - US 20150126834 A1
Xu et al. Paper-based wearable electronics iScience 24, 102736, July 23, 2021
Singh et al. Paper-Based Sensors: Emerging Themes and Applications, Sensors 2018, 18, 2838
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791