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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant’s election of species C1 and A2 in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged. Because the Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 10 is withdrawn since it is drawn to non-elected species B2.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a plurality of device means” of claim 1 since the adjective “device” connotes structure;
“a plurality of receptacle means” of claim 1 since the adjective “receptacle” connotes structure;
“bus means” of claim 1 since the adjective “bus” connotes structure;
“controller means” of claim 1 since the adjective “controller” connotes structure;
“electrical connector means” of claim 2 since the adjective “electrical connector” connotes structure;
“dock means” of claim 3 since “in the form of an open receptacle” connotes structure;
“dock means” of claim 4 since “in the form of an open receptacle having upstanding walls” connotes structure;
“dock means” of claim 5 since “upstanding walls, wherein two opposed walls of said at least one of the dock means are open” connotes structure;
“a carrier means” of claim 6 since the adjective “carrier” connotes structure;
“a plurality of device means” of claim 20 since “each device means having a light source for emitting light towards an animal body to which the apparatus is fitted in use, a light detector for detecting light returning from said animal body, and a device controller and a memory which process instructions to control the light source and which process and store data received from the light detector” connotes structure; and
“shared bus means” of claim 20 since “shared bus” connotes structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-14, 19, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 3: “an” should be inserted before “apparatus”;
in claim 2, line 6: “at least one of the receptacle means” should be “at least one of the plurality of the receptacle means”;
in claim 3, line 1: “at least one of the receptacle means” should be “at least one of the plurality of the receptacle means”;
in claim 3, line 2: “the form” should be “a form”;
in claim 4, line 1: “at least one of the receptacle means” should be “at least one of the plurality of the receptacle means”;
in claim 4, line 2: “the form” should be “a form”;
in claim 7, line 6: “a said animal body” should be “said animal body”;
in claim 7, lines 12-13: “a device received in the dock” should be “a corresponding device received in the respective dock”;
in claim 13, lines 1-2: “the form” should be “a form”;
in claim 14, line 3 (first occurrence): “the device” should be “a respective device of the plurality of devices”;
in claim 14, line 3 (second occurrence): “the device” should be “a respective device of the plurality of devices”;
in claim 19, line 3: “an” should be inserted before “apparatus”;
in claim 25, line 1: “the form” should be “a form”; and
in claim 28, line 1: “a distance” should be “the distance”.
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 1-9 and 11-28 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 device means” in line 14 and “the device means” in line 15, but it is not clear if these recitations are referring to a single device means or all of the plurality of device means. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “light” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “light” of claim 1, line 4. If they are the same, “light” in claim 2 should be “the light”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 2 recites “an animal body” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “an animal body” of claim 1, lines 1-2. If they are the same, “an animal body” in claim 2 should be “the animal body”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 2 recites “light” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “light” of claim 1, line 5. If they are the same, “light” in claim 2 should be “the light”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 2 recites “data” in line 5 and “data” in line 11, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from each other and/or “data” of claim 1, line 6. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 2 recites “instructions” in line 9, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “instructions” of claim 2, line 4. If they are the same, “instructions” in line 9 should be “the instructions”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 2 recites “electrical power” in line 14, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “electrical power” of claim 2, line 7. If they are the same, “electrical power” in line 14 should be “the electrical power”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 5 recites “the at least one of the receptacle means” in line 1 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the device means” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to a single device means or all of the plurality of device means. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “instructions” in line 13, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “instructions” of claim 7, line 7. If they are the same, “instructions” in line 13 should be “the instructions”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 7 recites “data” in line 13, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 7, line 8. If they are the same, “data” in line 13 should be “the data”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 7.
Claim 11 recites “at least two light sources wherein a first light source is arranged to emit light of a first wavelength and a second light source is arranged to emit light of a second wavelength which is different from the first wavelength” in lines 2-4, which is indefinite. First, it is not clear if any of the at least two light sources, the first light source, or the second light source is the same as, related to, or different from “at least one light source” of claim 7, line 4. Second, it is not clear if any of the light from the first light source or the light from the second light source is the same as, related to, or different from “light” of claim 7, line 4. The relationship among these recitations should be clarified.
Claim 12 recites “data” in line 5, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 7, line 8 and/or “data” of claim 7, line 13. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites “electrical power” in line 7, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “electrical power” of claim 12, line 2. If they are the same, “electrical power” in line 7 should be “the electrical power”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 15 recites “instructions” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “instructions” of claim 7, line 7 and/or “instructions” of claim 7, line 13. Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites “data” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 7, line 8 and/or “data” of claim 7, line 13. Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites “the photodetector units each housing a photodetector included in a plurality of photodetectors” in lines 3-5 which is so grammatically awkward that its meaning is not clear. For example, it is not clear if this recitation means “the photodetector units each housing a photodetector” (which results in a plurality of photodetectors among the photodetector units) or “the photodetector units each housing a plurality of photodetectors” (which results in a plurality of photodetectors in each photodetector unit). This ambiguity renders claim 16 indefinite.
Claims 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the master control unit is configured to be worn off the head of the user” in lines 1-2 which is so grammatically awkward that its meaning is not clear. For example, it is not clear if this recitation means (1) “wherein the master control unit is configured to be worn but not on the head of the user” or (2) “wherein the master control unit is configured so that it is incapable of being worn on the head of the user” or (3) some other meaning. Also, it is not entirely clear what kind of structure of the master control unit is being alluded to with interpretation (2). This ambiguity renders claim 19 indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “an animal body” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “an animal body” of claim 20, lines 1-2. If they are the same, “an animal body” in line 4 should be “the animal body”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 20 recites “instructions” in line 12, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “instructions” of claim 20, line 6. If they are the same, “instructions” in line 12 should be “the instructions”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 20 recites “data” in line 13, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 20, line 7. If they are the same, “data” in line 13 should be “the data”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claims 22-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 21 recites “the devices” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a plurality of device means” of claim 20, lines 3-4. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear. Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the devices” in claim 21.
Claim 22 is rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 22 recites “instructions” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “instructions” of claim 20, line 6 and/or “instructions” of claim 20, line 12. Clarification among these recitations is required.
Claim 22 recites “data” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 20, line 7 and/or “data” of claim 20, line 13. Clarification among these recitations is required.
Claim 23 recites “light to be emitted” in line 10 and “light to be emitted” in line 16, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from each other and/or “light” of claim 23, line 7 (first occurrence). Clarification among these recitations is required.
Claim 23 recites “light reflected” in line 11 and “light reflected” in line 17, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from each other and/or “light” of claim 23, line 7 (second occurrence). Clarification among these recitations is required.
Claims 24-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 23.
Claim 24 recites “data” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “data” of claim 24, line 3. If they are the same, “data” in line 4 should be “the data”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 26 recites “a head of the user” in lines 3-4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a body of a user” of claim 26, lines 1-2. The head is part of the body, but the claim language does not link the two concepts together. The relationship between these two recitations should be made clear.
Claims 27-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann).
With respect to claim 16, Muehlemann teaches a wearable brain interface system comprising:
a headgear (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann) configured to be worn on a head of a user;
a plurality of photodetector units (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) configured to attach to the headgear (paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann; FIG. 1 of Muehlemann), the photodetector units each housing a photodetector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) included in a plurality of photodetectors configured to detect photons of light; and
a master control unit (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann) coupled to each of the photodetector units and configured to control the photodetector units by directing the photodetectors included in the photodetector units to detect the photons of the light.
With respect to claim 17, Muehlemann teaches a light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) configured to generate the light.
With respect to claim 18, Muehlemann teaches that the light source comprises an individual light source included in each of the photodetector units (the optical sources 202 in each of the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann).
With respect to claim 19, Muehlemann teaches that the master control unit is configured to be worn off the head of the user (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann are so configured).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105605 (Abreu), and further in view of WO 2009/112281 (Harms).
Muehlemann teaches a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) that are attached using a support 102. In the related field of optical detecting, Abreu teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the docking connection of Abreu for attaching the optical sensors of Muehlemann to the support 102 of Muehlemann since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it provides a secure and removable connection.
Muehlemann teaches the use of a cabled or wireless connection 114, 116. Harms teaches the use of an I2C bus that provides a suitable connection that permits each device to have a unique address that is individually addressable by the master controller unit (page 17 of Harms)1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the I2C bus of Harms as the connections of Muehlemann since cabled or wired communicators are required and Harms teaches one such communicator and/or it provides unit address that are individual addressable by the master controller unit.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a system for measurement of optical properties of a medium in an animal body, the system comprising:
apparatus for fitting to the animal body, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of device means (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards the animal body to which the apparatus is fitted in use, for detecting light returning from said animal body, and for processing and storing data based on the detected light;
a plurality of receptacle means (the docks of Abreu), each of the receptacle means being for removably receiving a corresponding device means of the plurality of device means such that each device means of the plurality of device means can be received in and removed from the corresponding receptacle means such that the device means can be connected to and removed from different locations of the apparatus and repositioned as desired; and
bus means (the I2C bus of Harms) connected to and shared by each of the plurality of device means; and
controller means (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann) for controlling the light emitted by the device means and for receiving the data stored by the device means via the bus means.
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the receptacle means is dock means in the form of an open receptacle which is open facing outwardly of the animal body when the apparatus is fitted to the animal body such that the device means can be passed into and removed from the dock means in use while the apparatus is fitted to the animal body (see the receptacle formed by the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the receptacle means is dock means in the form of an open receptacle having upstanding walls (the walls of the recess 3696 of FIG. 100G; the walls of the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu) which define the receptacle for receiving a respective device means of the plurality of device means.
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that the at least one of the receptacle means is dock means comprising upstanding walls (the walls of the recess 3696 of FIG. 100G; the walls of the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu), wherein two opposed walls of said at least one of the dock means are open to allow a user to grip the device means to remove the device means from the dock means (see the open aspect of the recesses in FIGS. 100G and 100J of Abreu).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests that the apparatus comprises a carrier means (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann) for fitting over the animal body, the plurality of receptacle means being carried by the carrier means to allow the device means to be mounted to and removed from the carrier means (the receptacles formed by the recess 3696 of FIG. 100G or formed by the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu).
Claims 2, 7-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105605 (Abreu), and further in view of WO 2009/112281 (Harms), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 (LeBoeuf), and further in view of JP2006-6666 (Kumada).
Muehlemann teaches a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) that are attached using a support 102. In the related field of optical detecting, Abreu teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the docking connection of Abreu for attaching the optical sensors of Muehlemann to the support 102 of Muehlemann since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it provides a secure and removable connection.
Muehlemann teaches the use of a cabled or wireless connection 114, 116. Harms teaches the use of an I2C bus that provides a suitable connection that permits each device to have a unique address that is individually addressable by the master controller unit (page 17 of Harms)2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the I2C bus of Harms as the connections of Muehlemann since cabled or wired communicators are required and Harms teaches one such communicator and/or it provides unit address that are individual addressable by the master controller unit.
Muehlemann teaches the use of first, second, and third circuitry modules 208a-208c, a FPGA and/or ASIC, and a microcontroller 514 that can be used to control the light sources, process and compile the signals from the detectors, and transmit resulting signals to the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann (paragraphs 0120-0126 of Muehlemann). LeBoeuf teaches that such circuity include memories to buffer information for processing and sending information (paragraph 0071 of LeBoeuf). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a memory for processing and compiling the signals from the detectors since buffering such information permits the functions of compiling and processing suggested by Muehlemann.
Abreu teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu) while Harms teaches the use of the I2C bus. Kumada teaches that docking stations 43 have electrical connectors so as to permit sensors to connect to a wiring system (pages 7-9 and FIG. 13 of Kumada).3 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrical connector in each docking station in the combination as a means for connecting the devices to the I2C bus since it permits easy assembly and disassembly.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that each device means comprises a light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards an animal body to which the apparatus is fitted in use, a light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light returning from said animal body, and a device controller and a memory (the first, second, and third circuitry modules 208a-208c; the FPGA and/or ASIC, and the microcontroller 514 of Muehlemann, the memory suggested by LeBoeuf) which process instructions to control the light source and which process and store data received from the light detector; and at least one of the receptacle means comprises electrical connector means (the connector in each docking station) for making electrical power, control, and data connections between the bus means and the device controller of the device means received in said receptacle means, the electrical connector means of said receptacle means being for: (i) allowing instructions to control the light source of said device means to be sent by the controller means over the bus means to said device means via the electrical connector means to control the light source (the transmission of instructions suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann); (ii) allowing data from the light detector of said device means to be sent by the device controller of said device means via the electrical connector means and over the bus means to be received by the controller means (the transmission of data suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann); and (iii) allowing electrical power to pass over the bus means to the device controller of said device means via the electrical connector means (the transmission of electrical power suggested in paragraph 0137 of Muehlemann; it would have been obvious to transmit electrical power to the optical sensors from the host module 106 and/or central unit 108 since it centralizes the power sources for the plurality of sensors).
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests a measuring apparatus for measurement of optical properties of a medium in an animal body, the measuring apparatus comprising:
a carrier (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann) for fitting over the animal body;
a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann), each device having at least one light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards the animal body to which the carrier is fitted in use, at least one light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light returning from a said animal body, and a device controller and memory (the first, second, and third circuitry modules 208a-208c; the FPGA and/or ASIC, and the microcontroller 514 of Muehlemann, the memory suggested by LeBoeuf) for receiving and processing instructions to control the at least one light source and processing and storing data received from the at least one light detector;
a plurality of docks (the docks of Abreu) in the carrier, each dock for removably receiving a corresponding device in the plurality of devices to mount the devices to the carrier; and
a shared bus (the I2C bus of Harms), at least some of the docks comprising an electrical connector (the connector in each docking station) for making respective connections between the shared bus and the device controller of a device received in the dock to allow instructions and data to be passed between the device controllers of the plural devices via the shared bus (the transmissions of instructions and data suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests the shared bus having plural connector ports to which the device controllers of at least some of the devices are respectively connected (the connector in each docking station which are connected to corresponding connections on the I2C bus of Harms).
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests that the shared bus is a single shared serial communication bus (the I2C bus of Harms).
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the devices comprises at least two light sources wherein a first light source is arranged to emit light of a first wavelength and a second light source is arranged to emit light of a second wavelength which is different from the first wavelength (paragraphs 0012, 0065, and 1019-0110 of Muehlemann).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the docks comprises electrical connectors (the connector in each docking station) for making electrical power, control, and data connections between the shared bus and the device controller of the device received in said dock, the electrical connectors of said dock (i) allowing the instructions to control the light source of said device to be sent over the shared bus to said device via the electrical connectors to control the light source (the transmission of instructions suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann); (ii) allowing data from the light detector of said device to be sent by the device controller of said device via the electrical connectors and over the shared bus (the transmission of data suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann); and (iii) allowing electrical power to pass over the shared bus to the device controller of said device via the electrical connectors (the transmission of electrical power suggested in paragraph 0137 of Muehlemann; it would have been obvious to transmit electrical power to the optical sensors from the host module 106 and/or central unit 108 via the I2C bus of Harms and associated connections/ports since it centralizes the power sources for the plurality of sensors).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the docks is in the form of an open receptacle having upstanding walls which define the receptacle for receiving a respective device of the plurality of devices (the walls of the recess 3696 of FIG. 100G; the walls of the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggests that at least one of the docks comprises upstanding walls (the walls of the recess 3696 of FIG. 100G; the walls of the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu), wherein two opposed walls of said at least one of the docks are open to allow a user to grip the device to remove the device from the dock (see the open aspect of the recesses in FIGS. 100G and 100J of Abreu).
With respect to claim 15, the combination teaches or suggests that a main controller (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann) coupled to each of the devices by the shared bus and configured to send instructions over the shared bus to the devices to control the light sources of the devices (the transmission of instructions suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann) and to receive data over the shared bus from the light detectors of the devices (the transmission of data suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann), in view of WO 2009/112281 (Harms), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 (LeBoeuf).
Muehlemann teaches or suggests a wearable brain interface system comprising: a headgear (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann) configured to be worn on the head of a user; a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) configured to attach to the headgear (FIG. 1 of Muehlemann), each device having a light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards the head of the user in use and a light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light returned from the head of the user; and a master controller unit coupled to each of the devices and configured to control the devices (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann).
Muehlemann teaches the use of a cabled or wireless connection 114, 116. Harms teaches the use of an I2C bus that provides a suitable connection that permits each device to have a unique address that is individually addressable by the master controller unit (page 17 of Harms)4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the I2C bus of Harms as the connections of Muehlemann since cabled or wired communicators are required and Harms teaches one such communicator and/or it provides unit address that are individual addressable by the master controller unit.
Muehlemann teaches the use of first, second, and third circuitry modules 208a-208c, a FPGA and/or ASIC, and a microcontroller 514 that can be used to control the light sources, process and compile the signals from the detectors, and transmit resulting signals to the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann (paragraphs 0120-0126 of Muehlemann). LeBoeuf teaches that such circuity include memories to buffer information for processing and sending information (paragraph 0071 of LeBoeuf). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a memory for processing and compiling the signals from the detectors since buffering such information permits the functions of compiling and processing suggested by Muehlemann.
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches or suggests a system for measurement of optical properties of a medium in an animal body, the system comprising:
apparatus for fitting to the animal body, the apparatus comprising a plurality of device means (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann), each device means having a light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards an animal body to which the apparatus is fitted in use, a light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light returning from said animal body, and a device controller and a memory (the first, second, and third circuitry modules 208a-208c; the FPGA and/or ASIC, and the microcontroller 514 of Muehlemann, the memory suggested by LeBoeuf) which process instructions to control the light source and which process and store data received from the light detector;
shared bus means (the I2C bus of Harms), the shared bus means being connected to and shared by each of the plurality of device means; and
a master controller unit (the host module 106 and/or the central unit 108 of Muehlemann; paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann) coupled to each of the device means by the shared bus means, the shared bus means and the master controller unit being constructed and arranged such that the master controller unit sends instructions over the shared bus means to the device means to control the light sources of the device means and the master controller unit receives data over the shared bus means from the light detectors of the device means (paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann), in view of WO 2009/112281 (Harms), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 (LeBoeuf), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105605 (Abreu), and further in view of JP2006-6666 (Kumada).
Muehlemann teaches a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) that are attached using a support 102. In the related field of optical detecting, Abreu teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the docking connection of Abreu for attaching the optical sensors of Muehlemann to the support 102 of Muehlemann since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it provides a secure and removable connection.
Abreu teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu) while Harms teaches the use of the I2C bus. Kumada teaches that docking stations 43 have electrical connectors so as to permit sensors to connect to a wiring system (pages 7-9 and FIG. 13 of Kumada).5 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electrical connector in each docking station in the combination as a means for connecting the devices to the I2C bus since it permits easy assembly and disassembly.
With respect to claim 21, the combination teaches or suggests the shared bus means having plural connector ports to which the device controllers of at least some of the devices are respectively connected (the connector in each docking station which are connected to corresponding connections on the I2C bus of Harms).
With respect to claim 22, the combination teaches or suggests the shared bus means being constructed and arranged such that instructions and data pass between the device controllers and the master controller unit over one or more of the connector ports and electrical power passes to the device controllers over one or more other of the connector ports (the connector in each docking station which are connected to corresponding connections on the I2C bus of Harms; the transmission of instructions suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann; the transmission of data suggested in paragraph 0067 of Muehlemann; the transmission of electrical power suggested in paragraph 0137 of Muehlemann; it would have been obvious to transmit electrical power to the optical sensors from the host module 106 and/or central unit 108 via the I2C bus of Harms and associated connections/ports since it centralizes the power sources for the plurality of sensors).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann).
Muehlemann teaches a headgear (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann). Muehlemann teaches that the material for such headgear can be stretchable (paragraphs 0291 and 0308 of Muehlemann) and a fabric (paragraphs 0282 and 0287 of Muehlemann). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stretchable fabric for the support of Muehlemann since (1) a material is required and Muehlemann teaches one such material, (2) it is comfortable to the patient, and/or (3) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 26, Muehlemann teaches or suggests a measuring apparatus for measurement of optical properties of a medium in a body of a user, the measuring apparatus comprising:
a headgear (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann) formed of a flexible fabric (the stretchable fabric suggested by Muehlemann) to allow the headgear to be fitted to and worn on a head of the user;
a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann), each device having at least one light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards the head of the user to which the headgear is fitted in use and at least one light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light returning from the head of the user; and
wherein the headgear and the devices are constructed and arranged such that the devices are connectable to the headgear and removable from the headgear such that the devices are selectively connectable to the headgear at different locations on the headgear to allow the devices to be repositioned on the headgear (the support and the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 are capable of such a function).
With respect to claim 27, Muehlemann teaches or suggests that the headgear is formed of a flexible, stretchable fabric (the stretchable fabric suggested by Muehlemann).
With respect to claim 28, Muehlemann teaches that processing may involve comparing (or otherwise using) detected quantities representing an optical signal from a single optical source that is detected by multiple optical detectors located at different distances from the optical source. Because the depths to which the detected optical signals travel within the subject may depend on the distance between the optical source and the optical detector, using multiple optical detectors located at different distances from the optical source may provide information about different depths within the subject, and thus allow for comparison of such information (paragraph 0095 of Muehlemann). Muehlemann further teaches that optical detectors 8, 9, and 15 are located at increasing distances L1, L2, and L3, respectively, from the optical source 5, and may be considered as a first nearest neighbor to optical source 5, a second nearest neighbor to optical source 5, and a third nearest neighbor to optical source 5, respectively. Higher order nearest neighbors (e.g., a fourth nearest neighbor, a fifth nearest neighbor, etc.) may also detect optical signals in some embodiments, depending on factors such as the strength of the optical signals produced by the optical sources, the distances between the optical sources and optical detectors, and the material into which the optical signals are being sent (e.g., tissue) (paragraph 0107 of Muehlemann). Also, Muehlemann teaches that the optical sources 202 and optical detectors 204 of the optical sensor 200 may be spaced by any suitable distances. For example, first nearest neighbor optical detectors (those optical detectors of an optical sensor array that are most closely spaced with respect to an optical source) may be within approximately 10-20 mm of the optical source (e.g., the distance L1 shown in FIG. 4 may be between approximately 10-20 mm). Second nearest neighbor optical detectors (e.g., separated by a distance L2 from an optical source, as shown in FIG. 4) may be within approximately 20-35 mm of the optical source. Third nearest neighbor optical detectors (e.g., separated by a distance L3 from an optical source, as shown in FIG. 4) may be within approximately 35-50 mm of the optical source. Other spacing values are also possible, as those described are non-limiting examples (paragraph 0153 of Muehlemann). From these teachings, Muehlemann teaches that the distances between each light source and the light detector are subject to change depending upon various factors including the desired depth of light penetration into the tissue, the nature of the tissue, and the strength of the optical signals produced by the optical sources. As such, the distances between each light source and the light detector are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of the desired depth of light penetration into the tissue, the nature of the tissue, and the strength of the optical signals produced by the optical sources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to select the distances between each light source and the light detector so as to obtain the desired depth of light penetration into the tissue based on the nature of the tissue, and the strength of the optical signals produced by the optical sources.
In view of the above, the features “wherein the distance between the light source of a device of the plurality of devices and the light detector of the device is a minimum of 8.5 mm” would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0275891 (Muehlemann) teaches a plurality of devices (the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann; FIG. 3A of Muehlemann) that are attached using a support 102. In the related field of optical detecting, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0105605 (Abreu) teaches the use of a docking connection for mounting an optical sensor to a support (the recess 3696 of FIGS. 100G; the recess 3752 with the plugs 3764, 3766 of FIG. 100J of Abreu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the docking connection of Abreu for attaching the optical sensors of Muehlemann to the support 102 of Muehlemann since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it provides a secure and removable connection.
With respect to claim 23, the combination teaches or suggests a method of imaging at least part of an animal body to obtain different images of at least part of the animal body (the image generation suggested by paragraphs 0072 and 0133, and 0147 of Muehlemann) using a measuring apparatus which measures optical properties of the animal body, the measuring apparatus having a carrier (the support of Muehlemann; paragraphs 0066-0067, 0074-0075, and 0274-0280 of Muehlemann), the carrier having a plurality of docks (the docks of Abreu), the method comprising:
fitting the carrier of the measuring apparatus over at least the part of the animal body (fitting the support of Muehlemann onto the head of the patient; FIG. 1 of Muehlemann);
fitting a plurality of devices to the carrier (fitting the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann to the docks of Abreu), each device having at least one light source (the optical sources 202 of Muehlemann) for emitting light towards the animal body and at least one light detector (the optical detectors 204 of Muehlemann) for detecting light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body, wherein the plurality of devices are fitted to the carrier by placing each device in a corresponding one of the docks of the carrier (fitting the plurality of optical sensors 200, 104 of Muehlemann to the docks of Abreu);
operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a first image of a region of the animal body to be produced (Muehlemann teaches that one or more images may be generated (paragraphs 0072 and 0133, and 0147 of Muehlemann) using the optical sensors.
However, this combination does not teach or suggest the steps of “relocating at least one of the devices relative to the carrier by removing said device from the dock in which said device was previously placed and placing said device in a different one of the docks; and operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a second image of the region of the animal body or a different region of the animal body to be produced, where the second image is different from the first image” of claim 23. Rather, the combination teaches the use of each docking station having its own corresponding optical sensor such that there is no empty docking station for an-already-docked optical sensor to move to.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0042067 (Rousso) teaches that imaging can be performed using a single detector at a plurality of locations or a plurality of detectors (paragraph 1618 of Rousso). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move a single optical sensor around the docking stations of the combination to create an image rather than having an optical sensor in each docking station since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it reduces the numbers of optical sensors and therefore reduces the costs. With the teachings of Rousso, this combination teaches “relocating at least one of the devices relative to the carrier by removing said device from the dock in which said device was previously placed and placing said device in a different one of the docks; and operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a second image of the region of the animal body or a different region of the animal body to be produced, where the second image is different from the first image” of claim 23 with the moving of the single optical sensor around the docking stations. However, such a combination would not teach a plurality of optical sensors in the docking stations as required by the recitation “fitting a plurality of devices to the carrier, each device having at least one light source for emitting light towards the animal body and at least one light detector for detecting light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body, wherein the plurality of devices are fitted to the carrier by placing each device in a corresponding one of the docks of the carrier; operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a first image of a region of the animal body to be produced” of claim 23.
Similarly, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0007192 (Panizzi) teaches that imaging can be performed using a single detector at a plurality of locations or a plurality of detectors may be used (paragraph 0006 of Panizzi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move a single optical sensor around the docking stations of the combination to create an image rather than having an optical sensor in each docking station since (1) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or (2) it reduces the numbers of optical sensors and therefore reduces the costs. With the teachings of Panizzi, this combination teaches “relocating at least one of the devices relative to the carrier by removing said device from the dock in which said device was previously placed and placing said device in a different one of the docks; and operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a second image of the region of the animal body or a different region of the animal body to be produced, where the second image is different from the first image” of claim 23 with the moving of the single optical sensor around the docking stations. However, such a combination would not teach a plurality of optical sensors in the docking stations as required by the recitation “fitting a plurality of devices to the carrier, each device having at least one light source for emitting light towards the animal body and at least one light detector for detecting light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body, wherein the plurality of devices are fitted to the carrier by placing each device in a corresponding one of the docks of the carrier; operating the measuring apparatus to cause light to be emitted by the light sources at the animal body and to cause light reflected from or transmitted by the animal body to be detected by the light detectors to enable a first image of a region of the animal body to be produced” of claim 23.
For the above reasons, claim 23 is allowable.
Claims 24-25 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Paragraph 0026 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0034485 and paragraph 0078 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 teach this as well.
2 Paragraph 0026 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0034485 and paragraph 0078 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 teach this as well.
3 U.S. Patent No. 4,967,038 (Gevins) also teaches that docking stations have electrical connectors 31 so as to permit multiple sensors 12a to connect to an embedded wiring system (FIGS. 4 and 5A of Gevins).
4 Paragraph 0026 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0034485 and paragraph 0078 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217100 teach this as well.
5 U.S. Patent No. 4,967,038 (Gevins) also teaches that docking stations have electrical connectors 31 so as to permit multiple sensors 12a to connect to an embedded wiring system (FIGS. 4 and 5A of Gevins).
Prosecution Insights