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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on Page 7 regarding the objections to the drawings has been fully considered. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Page 8 regarding the objections to the specification has been fully considered. The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Pages 9-11 regarding the objections to Claims 6-8, 10-17, and 20 has been fully considered. The objections of Claims 6-8, 10-17, and 20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Page 11 regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Pages 12-17 regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim has been fully considered but is not persuasive under new grounds of rejection as below.
Applicant’s argument on Pages 18-19 regarding the rejection of Claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lim et al. (US 20160143554) in view of LeBoeuf et al. (US 20100217098) has been fully considered. However, while the differences between the instant application and the prior art are appreciated, LeBoeuf is not cited for the limitations which applicant argues. The modification provided by LeBoeuf is that the contact area has a flexible opaque material and transparent windows.
Regarding the rejection of all remaining corresponding claims, applicant’s argument submitted on Pages 19-20 relies on the supposed deficiencies with respect to the rejection of parent Claim 1. Applicant’s argument is moot for the same reasons detailed above.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 109 (Fig. 1A). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a minor error in antecedent basis. The claim should be amended to “[…] part of the flat apex forming […] force exerted on the wearable sensor device […]” in order to establish proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 12, 15, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: a minor error in antecedent basis. The claims should be amended to “the wearable sensor device” in order to establish proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites the limitation “the optical sensor module comprises at least a light detecting element and a light emitting element,” which has previously been established in Claim 1, of which the claim is a dependent. The “light detecting element” of Claim 8 and the “light sensor element” of Claim 1 are interpreted as the same element.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Russomanno (US 20220071538).
Regarding Claim 1, Russomanno teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, ([0031] “system 100 for collecting and/or analyzing biometric information about a user 102. […] head-mounted display (HMD) 106”) comprising:
a) a hollow, flexibly deformable protrusion, ([0048] “The hollow cavity surrounded by the conductive surface 802 and the wall 804 may encourage the conductive surface 802 to compress inwards toward the base of the sensor 800 when the device is in use” and [0056] “each electrode may include a plurality of conductive projections (e.g., […] prongs […] that may contact/engage the user’s scalp)”), comprising a base and a flat apex, at least part of the apex forming a contact area for contacting the skin ([0009] “Each of these flexible prongs may have a substantially oblique conical shape with an apex of the conical shape arranged radially away from a base of the conical shape, making the prongs capable of extending through the user's hair and contacting the user's scalp,” Figs. 3A-B and 7, where the plurality of sensors 304a (e.g., electrodes) are shown to have a flat apex, and [0056] “each electrode may include a plurality of conductive projections (e.g., […] prongs […] that may contact/engage the user’s scalp)”);
b) an optical sensor module, ([0045] “PPG PCB 700”), comprising at least a light emitting element, ([0045] “the PPG sensor may include a photodiode capable of illuminating the user's facial skin (e.g., using a pulse oximeter such as an LED)”), and a light sensor element, ([0045] “the PPG PCB 700 may be configured to determine PPG information about the user based on light absorption changes measured by the photodiode.”), that are independently mounted, (Fig. 7), the optical sensor module being mounted on or inside the protrusion, (Fig. 7, where 700 and the sensors passed through the cavities on front layer 702 are mounted independently), the optical sensor module being mounted on or against the contact area ([0035] “the sensing device 202 may contact one or more areas of the user's face (e.g., the forehead and/or areas surrounding the user's eyes) from where biometric signals may be collected to determine the user's physiological and/or neural reactions to the audio/visual stimuli. These biometric signals may be of different types including, for example, […] PPG signals” and [0045] “The PPG PCB 700 may include or may be coupled to a PPG sensor configured to pass through a cavity (e.g., opening) in the front layer 702 (e.g., the cavity 404 in FIGS. 4A and 4B) and detect signals (e.g., optical signals) from the user's face.”); and
c) a sensor device fixating structure configured to press the contact area with a constant pressure against the skin, ([0052] “the rear adjuster 912 may include a rotatable knob that may be turned to tighten or loosen the strapparatus to conform to the user's head size as well as to adjust the pressure applied to the user's scalp.”), wherein, when the contact area is pressed against the skin, an increase of a force exerted on the sensor device deforms the protrusion such that the contact area that is in contact with the skin increases, while pressure stays the same ([0048] “The hollow cavity surrounded by the conductive surface 802 and the wall 804 may encourage the conductive surface 802 to compress inwards toward the base of the sensor 800 when the device is in use. This way, a larger surface area of the conductive surface 802 may be in contact with the user's face”).
Regarding Claim 3, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the base is configured as a flexible joint region connecting the protrusion to the sensor device fixating structure, the flexible joint region providing flexible movement of the protrusion in rotational, translation and/or angular directions relative to the base ([0037] “Since the PCB layer 304 is flexible (e.g., a flexible PCB), it may be embedded between the third layer 306 and the fourth layer 308, and adapt its shape to accommodate the pressure caused by the first layer 302 pressing against the user's face and/or the fourth layer 308 flexing to accommodate the curvature of the user's face.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein at least part of the optical sensor module is fixated inside the protrusion against a sheet material forming the contact area of the protrusion (Figs. 3A-B and 7, and [0037] “Since the PCB layer 304 is flexible (e.g., a flexible PCB), it may be embedded between the third layer 306 and the fourth layer 308, and adapt its shape to accommodate the pressure caused by the first layer 302 pressing against the user's face and/or the fourth layer 308 flexing to accommodate the curvature of the user's face.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the hollow, flexibly deformable protrusion is made of an elastomeric sheet material ([0048] “The conductive surface 802 may be made of silicone with conductive additive and/or EPDM rubber (ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber)”).
Regarding Claim 8, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the optical sensor module comprises at least a light detecting element, ([0045] “the PPG PCB 700 may be configured to determine PPG information about the user based on light absorption changes measured by the photodiode.”), and a light emitting element, ([0045] “the PPG sensor may include a photodiode capable of illuminating the user's facial skin (e.g., using a pulse oximeter such as an LED)”).
Regarding Claim 9, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the protrusion comprises a cavity or a chamber formed by the apex and one or more side walls connecting the apex to the base (Fig. 8 and [0047] “conductive surface 802”).
Regarding Claim 10, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein at least part of the one or more side walls have a convex shape so that when the protrusion is deflected and/or compressed, the one or more side walls will deflect outwardly ([0048] “The hollow cavity surrounded by the conductive surface 802 and the wall 804 may encourage the conductive surface 802 to compress inwards toward the base of the sensor 800 when the device is in use. This way, a larger surface area of the conductive surface 802 may be in contact with the user's face, allowing for an increased flow of electrons into the sensor and improving the quality of signal collection.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein cross-sectional dimensions of the protrusion at a joint region are smaller than cross-sectional dimensions of the protrusion at a height of the side walls (Fig. 8, where the dimension of the snap connector 808, interpreted as the joint region, is smaller than the cross section of the conductive surface 802, which is at the height of the sidewalls, casing 806.).
Regarding Claim 12, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the sensor device further comprises a housing comprising electronics for processing sensor signals of the optical sensor module, one or more strips of a flexible and/or stretchable Printed Circuit Board (PCB) electrically connecting the optical sensor module to the electronics ([0045] “a PPG PCB 700 that may be secured between a front layer 702 (e.g., the front layer 302 in FIGS. 3A and 3B) of the sensing device described herein and a PCB layer 704 of the sensing device described herein (e.g., the PCB layer 304 shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B).”).
Regarding Claim 13, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the optical sensor module includes a first sensor element mounted against a first part of an inner side of a material forming the contact area and a second sensor element mounted against a second part of the inner side of the material forming the contact area so that, when an outer surface of the contact area is pressed against the skin, the first sensor element can have an orientation that is different from the orientation of the second sensor element (Figs 3A, 3B, and 7, the sensor elements have different orientations).
Regarding Claim 16, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the chamber or cavity of the protrusion is airtight, (Fig. 8, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the electrode 800 design is airtight), and the chamber or cavity is filled with a compressible material ([0047] “The conductive surface 802 may be made of a conductive polymer material. The wall 804 may also be made of a polymer material”).
Regarding Claim 18, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the wearable sensor device is configured to be attached to a body part, (Abstract “The sensing device may include a multi-layered facepad and may be coupled to a VR/AR headset […] to monitor the person's physiological and/or neural reactions to audio/visual stimuli.”), and further comprising:
a) a protective casing, (Figs. 3A and 3B), comprising a top surface, ([0037] “fourth layers 308”), side walls, (Figs. 3A and 3B, annotated below), and a bottom surface ([0037] “first layer 302”); and
b) the bottom surface including a peripheral part, the flexibly deformable protrusion being flexibly connected to the peripheral part, the peripheral part including a surface for positioning the sensor device against the skin ([0052] “As the knobs of the adjustment mechanisms 964 are turned, for example, by pushing and applying pressures against the side arms 920 of the strapparatus 900, a user can adjust the internal curvatures of the four layers 302-308 of the facepad, thereby improving the connection quality between the sensors on the sensing device 202 and the skin of the human body (e.g., the head).”);
c) wherein the sensor device fixating structure is configured to fixate the peripheral part against the skin and/or wherein the contact area of the protrusion extends beyond the surface of the peripheral part, so that when the sensor device is fixating against the skin, the contact area will be pressed against the skin with a predetermined pressure ([0052] “As the knobs of the adjustment mechanisms 964 are turned, for example, by pushing and applying pressures against the side arms 920 of the strapparatus 900, a user can adjust the internal curvatures of the four layers 302-308 of the facepad, thereby improving the connection quality between the sensors on the sensing device 202 and the skin of the human body (e.g., the head).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3A and 3B of Russomanno
Regarding Claim 19, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Russomanno teaches wherein the protrusion is a cushion or a balloon-shaped protrusion (Fig. 8 shows the conductive surface 802 with a balloon-shape, e.g., is rounded/bulbous).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russomanno (US 20220071538) in view of Taji et al. (“Effect of Pressure on Skin-Electrode Impedance in Wearable […]”).
Regarding Claim 2, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Lim does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure is smaller than 8 kPa.
In an analogous wearable biomedical measurement device field of endeavor, Taji teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, (Abstract “This research investigates the effect of applied pressure on the skin-electrode impedance.”), wherein the pressure is smaller than 8 kPa (III. Methodology, B. Measurement set up, 2) Experimental procedures “the cuff was alternating between 0 Pa to 4 kPa.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modifying the teachings of Lim with Taji because the modification keeps the discomfort of the patient to a minimum, thereby allowing continuous measurement of the patient by the sensors.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russomanno (US 20220071538) in view of LeBoeuf et al. (US 20100217098).
Regarding Claim 6, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Lim does not explicitly teach wherein at least part of the contact area is made of a flexible opaque material, the contact area further comprising one or more transparent windows of a flexible optically transparent material, the light emitting element and the light sensor element being mounted against the backside side of the contact area in alignment with the one or more transparent windows.
In an analogous form-fitted monitoring apparatus field of endeavor, LeBoeuf teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, (Abstract “A monitoring apparatus includes a housing that is configured to be attached to a body of a subject.”), wherein at least part of the contact area is made of a flexible opaque material, ([0083] “optical-pass materials, such visible-pass, IR-pass plastics and UV-block plastics (such as polyethylene), may be suitable for regulating optical energy and may constitute at least part of the material used in a sensor region 204.”), the contact area further comprising one or more transparent windows of a flexible optically transparent material, ([0083] “optical-pass materials, such visible-pass, IR-pass plastics and UV-block plastics (such as polyethylene), may be suitable for regulating optical energy and may constitute at least part of the material used in a sensor region 204.”), the light emitting element and the light sensor element being mounted against a backside side of the contact area in alignment with the one or more transparent windows ([0083] “a sensor region 204 may be molded over sensor elements 101, 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the teachings of Russomanno with LeBoeuf because the combination allows for selective passing of light to the patient, in order to collect the responsive signals.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified device of Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 6, as discussed above. Furthermore, LeBoeuf teaches wherein a surface of the contact area comprises one or more recesses at a position of the one or more transparent windows, ([0092] “lens 406 includes optical regulating region 408”), the one or more recesses being configured to house at least part of the light emitting element and the light sensor element respectively ([0092] “optical detectors 404”), respectively (Fig. 12, annotated and reproduced by examiner below).
PNG
media_image2.png
373
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of LeBoeuf
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the teachings of LeBoeuf for the same reasons as Claim 6 above, and further, allows for a compact design, which is advantageous when designing wearable sensors for a patient.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russomanno (US 20220071538) in view of Williams et al. (US 20170118838).
Regarding Claim 14, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Russomanno does not explicitly teach wherein the optical sensor module comprises an elongated rigid Printed Circuit Board (PCB) having a longitudinal axis and a transversal axis, the rigid PCB comprising two or more sensors elements mounted thereon and at least two flexible PCB strips, each flexible PCB strip being connected to a long side of the rigid PCB so that the rigid PCB can rotate about its longitudinal axis and its transversal axis.
In an analogous 3D bendable printed circuit board field of endeavor, Williams teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, ([0717] “The combination of rigid-flex PCB fabrication, distributed PCB designs, and electrical redundancy can be applied for a variety of wearable electronics and medical devices.”), wherein the optical sensor module comprises an elongated rigid Printed Circuit Board (PCB) having a longitudinal axis and a transversal axis, ([0044] “rigid PCBs 190A, 190B, and 190C,” where the PCBs have a longitudinal axis and a transversal axis by design.), the rigid PCB comprising two or more sensors elements mounted thereon, ([0528] “sensor elements 498 are distributed over an area in every rigid PCB in a matrix”), and at least two flexible PCB strips, ([0528] “three flex 299 connectors, i.e. PCB 303; four flex connected PCBs 304, and five flex connected PCBs 305.”), each flexible PCB strip being connected to a long side of the rigid PCB so that the rigid PCB can rotate about its longitudinal axis and its transversal axis (Fig. 37B, where because the device may be implemented as a wearable, rotation about the axes (flexing, movement, compression) is understood to occur.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the teachings of Russomanno with Williams because the combination allows absorption of mechanical stress, as taught by Williams in [0005], while also offering “versatility for conforming electronic devices to unusual and curved surfaces of the human body,” further taught by Williams in [0717].
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russomanno (US 20220071538) in view of Lim et al. (US 20160143554).
Regarding Claim 15, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Russomanno does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor device fixating structure is configured to fixate the contact area against the skin of a backside of an ear.
In an analogous measuring bioelectrical signals field of endeavor, Lim teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, (Abstract “An apparatus for measuring bioelectrical signals” and Fig. 1), wherein the sensor device fixating structure is configured to fixate the contact area against the skin of a backside of an ear ([0259] “Accordingly, since the sensor electrode 350 is elastically supported by the sensor support 330 to move in 3-axis directions, even when the extending support portion 310 slightly moves, the sensor electrode 350 may stably contact the skin of the external part 6 of the ear 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the teachings of Russomanno with Lim because the modification minimizes motion artifacts because of the proximity to the ear, and also allows for stable and unobtrusive electrophysiological observation of brain activity.
Regarding Claim 20, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Lim teaches where the sensor device fixating structure includes a flexible clamping structure for clamping the optical sensor module around an ear, ([0275] “The left and right main frames 510L and 510R may each be formed of a plastic mold, and may fix the connection frame 530 and the fixing frame 590. The left and right main frames 510L and 510R may be provided over the ears 5 when being worn, and may be customized to conform to the head 1 of the living body who wears the apparatus 500.”), so that the contact area is pressed against the skin of a backside of the ear (Fig. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the teachings of Russomanno with Lim because the modification minimizes motion artifacts because of the proximity to the ear, and also allows for stable and unobtrusive electrophysiological observation of brain activity.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russomanno (US 20220071538) in view of Lim et al. (US 20160143554) and Ontiveros (US 20190082971).
Regarding Claim 17, Russomanno teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Russomanno does not explicitly teach wherein the wearable sensor device is configured as an ear sensor, the sensor device fixating structure including an ear hook of an elastic material configured to press the contact area against skin of a backside of an ear, a first end of the ear hook being sphere shaped contact structure, the sphere shaped contact structure a spherical element and a balloon-structure of a flexible sheet material formed around the spherical element.
In an analogous measuring bioelectrical signals field of endeavor, Lim teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, (Abstract “An apparatus for measuring bioelectrical signals” and Fig. 1), wherein the sensor device fixating structure including an ear hook of an elastic material, ([0275] “The left and right main frames 510L and 510R may each be formed of a plastic mold”), configured to press the contact area against skin of the backside of the ear (Fig. 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to modify the teachings of Russomanno with Lim because the modification allows for comfortable wear by the user.
However, Russomanno modified by Lim does not explicitly teach wherein the wearable sensor device is configured as an ear sensor, a first end of the ear hook being sphere shaped contact structure, the sphere shaped contact structure a spherical element and a balloon-structure of a flexible sheet material formed around the spherical element.
In an analogous monitoring and measuring of vital signs field of endeavor, Ontiveros teaches a wearable sensor device for contacting skin, ([0001] “This invention also relates to a vital signs measurement apparatus, preferably a wearable apparatus for measuring one or more vital signs of a patient, such as temperature and heart rate, and a vital signs monitoring system.”), wherein the wearable sensor device is configured as an ear sensor, (Fig. 6, reproduced below), a first end of the ear hook, ([0199] “The attachment member 118 is hook member that is used to hook the apparatus 110 around the ear 2 of the patient 1.”), being sphere shaped contact structure, ([0201] “second portion 112b is generally spherical in shape”), the sphere shaped contact structure a spherical element and a balloon-structure of a flexible sheet material formed around the spherical element ([0201] “the second portion 112b […] is made from a resilient rubber material.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
674
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Ontiveros
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the teachings of Ontiveros because the combination securely holds the device in place relative to the patient’s ear, as taught by Ontiveros in [0201].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795