DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This application is a CON of 18/059,190 11/28/2022 PAT 11,848,515
which is a CON of 17/083,006 10/28/2020 PAT 11,515,664
which is a CON of 16/230,063 12/21/2018 PAT 10,855,023
which is a CON of 15/288,987 10/07/2016 PAT 10,205,272
which is a CON of 13/783,424 03/04/2013 PAT 9,466,919
which is a CON of 12/721,199 03/10/2010 PAT 8,388,353.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 29, 30, 40, 41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Difonzo et al. (US 7351066 B2)
In regard to claim 29, Difonzo et al. discloses a magnetic connector 100 comprising:
a receptacle 150 having a first contact set 160 proximate a first magnetic element 170;
a plug 110 having a second contact set 120 proximate a second magnetic element 130, wherein the first magnetic element 170 is configured to magnetically attract the second magnetic element 130 when the plug 110 is oriented in alignment with the receptacle 150;
the alignment comprising:
the first contact set 160 aligned with the second contact set 120; and
the first magnetic element 170 aligned with the second magnetic element 130, the alignment permitting an electrical connection between the first contact set 160 and the second contact set 120, wherein the electrical connection permits a transfer of power
from the plug 110 to the receptacle 150.
The recitation that the “connector for a patient monitoring system” has not been given significant patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
In regard to claim 30, Difonzo et al. discloses the electrical connection communicatively couples a device 50 with another device 60.
The recitation “patient monitoring device and a sensing device” has not been given significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 40, Difonzo et al. discloses a magnetic connector method, the method
comprising:
defining a first contact set 160 proximate a first magnetic element 170, wherein the first
contact set 160 and the first magnetic element 170 are comprised by a receptacle 150;
defining a second contact set 120 proximate a second magnetic element 130, wherein the second contact set 120 and the second magnetic element 130 are comprised by a plug 110, wherein the first magnetic element 170 is configured to magnetically attract the second magnetic element 130 when the plug 110 is oriented in alignment with the receptacle 150, and wherein aligning comprises:
aligning the first contact set 160 with the second contact set 120; and
aligning the first magnetic element 170 with the second magnetic element 130, the
alignment permitting an electrical connection between the first contact set 160 and the
second contact set 120, wherein the electrical connection permits a transfer of power
from the plug 110 to the receptacle 150.
The recitation “patient monitoring system” has not been given significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In regard to claim 41, Difonzo et al. discloses permitting the electrical connection communicatively couples a device 50 with another device 60.
The recitation “patient monitoring device and a sensing device” has not been given significant patentable weight since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Difonzo et al. in view of Difonzo et al. (fig. 13A).
In regard to claim 31, Difonzo et al. (fig. 3) does not disclose the receptacle 150 comprises a receptacle core disposed around the first contact set 160 and the first magnetic element 170.
Difonzo et al. (fig. 13A) discloses the receptacle 450 comprises a receptacle core 470 disposed around the contact set 460 and the magnetic element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Difonzo et al. (fig. 3) by constructing the receptacle core as disclosed by Difonzo et al. (fig. 13A) in order to reduce potential interference with internal components of the electronic device (col. 9, lines 1-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-39, 42-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO D. TA whose telephone number is (571)272-2014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
Tdt
3/20/2026
/THO D TA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights