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 . Claims 1-17 are currently pending, with claims 4-11 standing as withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 15 the limitation reads, “the asymmetrical plate structure is configured connect the first….” Where it is believed the language should be adjusted to “configurated to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the rotation”, in line two, this is assumed to be the same “rotation” mentioned in claim 1 at line 16 between the counterpart and the first mechanical connection part. Some clarity in claim 2 would be beneficial to ensure that this is the interpretation that was meant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There are no polymers disclosed in the original disclosure with respect to the claimed connection part. For purposes of prosecution the material will simply be one that can be used for repeated attachment and release.
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 1-3 and 12-17 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 recites the limitation "at least one bar" in line seven. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, those two lines (6-7) could be reworded to clear up any other ambiguity, where “the first mechanical connector comprises at least one bar and an asymmetrical plate structure, where the asymmetric plate structure and the at least one bar are integrated….” The style/grammar these components are described structurally seems to run on looking like there is a second “at least one bar” which the specification does not support.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first connection" in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer envelope" in lines eight. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the case" in line three. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites that the connection part is made by a material that is “tougher” than that of the case, it is unclear in which way it is tougher, and the specification does not provide much guidance as to what is meant. Does the material decay slower, is it less likely to break (brittle), will it wear down or change color due to UV or heat exposure? Tougher is being treated as a relative term at present, and for purposes of prosecution it will be treated broadly.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1, barring the 112 rejections above, contains allowable subject matter. Komoto US Publication 2018/0175564 includes many of the structural elements such as the mechanical and electrical connectors part of the bio-signal receiving device (31) and goes into detail on an asymmetrical plate structure which is designed to limit the connection and orientation (Figures 1, 17) via the unlabeled tabs on the outer periphery, which is then to interface with a counterpart (Figure 1 at 11), where the structure extends radially around a rotational axis with several extensions (Figures 1 and 17, which shows the protrusions acting as the asymmetrical plate structure around a rotational axis, each portion being one of several extensions), where these plate extensions are designed to allow rotation with the counterpart with their upper surface moving against a surface of the counterpart (Figure 1 along the sidewalls of 11 which shows the wedge portion that would afford this motion), and though mentions that the electrical connector structure (33) is on an outer periphery within the connection part, does not contact an outer surface of the plane arrangement. Though plane arrangement is incredibly vague, no element within Komoto is comparable to what amounts to a plate. The electrical connections of these devices are not generally located on an outer surface of a plate (plane arrangement) as the connection types are different. The overall connection type is commonly referred to as a bayonet-style connection used in electrical/mechanical sockets and connectors such as in Valencia US 2016/0186792, Vogt US 2015/0078013, Himeo US 2014/0349527, Huang US 2013/0183854, and in Pfeiffer US 7,866,992. Each of these connectors includes the electrical connector within what could be considered a plane arrangement.
Pfeiffer is closest in Figures 1-3 which shows similar plates on an outer portion of a bar; however the electrical connector is within. Electrical connectors like Blineau US 2019/0089075 also fall short for the same reason. The exact claimed configuration is modified enough from known types of bayonet connectors combined with the bio-signal receiving device that is considered non-obvious in light of the closest prior art of record.
Kulach US 2014/036493 is another similar ECG monitoring device to Komoto that includes a rotational locking design, similar to what is claimed but includes the electrical connectors at 56 on an interior. And for the skilled artisan to then modify the design to include an unnecessary a plane arrangement with a bar, which then should include the common cam/plates already on the outer periphery of the housing would require impermissible hindsight. Once the minor claim objections and claim rejections have been addressed the claims would allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/B.M.A/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794