DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 27 November 2023, 12 March 2024, and 27 June 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 13-14 contain minor typographical errors.
Claim 13, line 9: The Examiner suggests changing “a subject” to “the animal subject”.
Claim 14, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The animal model of claim 13” to “The animal model system of claim 13”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea and mathematical algorithms without significantly more. Specifically, claims 13-14, 21-23, and 40-50 recite a skin-wearable printed sensor that is configured to monitor electrophysiological parameter of an animal subject. Meanwhile, claims 32-33 the comparison of physiological signals or parameters that are collected by a skin-wearable printed sensor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to using sensors to monitor a subject (abstract idea) and comparing data (mathematical algorithms). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data collected from the sensors is not utilized to provide a substantial step (e.g., feedback loops, therapy adjustments, diagnosis, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claim 42 is 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 42 recites the limitation "the polyimide layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7. 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.
Claims 47-48 are 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. Claim 47 does not constitute a further limitation, as claim 47 recites the skin wearable printed sensor comprising one or more stretchable graphene sensors which was previously recited in claim 13. Claim 48 does not constitute a further limitation, as claim 48 recites the same group of sensors that may be selected from claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 13, 22, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. (US 2020/0297244 A1) in view of Brockway et al. (US 2016/0345850 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brownhill teaches an animal model system (the embodiments of the invention comprise an apparatus having one or more sensors that are configured to monitor an injury of animal’s tissue or muscle [0035-0037, 0051, 0297]. For example, the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]), comprising:
an animal subject ([0035-0036]) comprising a wearable device comprising a skin-wearable printed sensor over the animal subject's skin (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the compression apparatus 402 may be positioned on the animal’s head, neck, chest, thigh, or calf [0036, 00249-0250, 0276]. Furthermore, the sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]), wherein the animal subject was subjected to an injury ([0035-0036]);
the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises one or more sensors configured as a sensor selected from the group consisting of an electromyogram (EMG) sensor or an electrical sensor , wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor is used to monitor an electrophysiological parameter of the subject (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to measure the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]. Furthermore, the one or more sensors 406 may also include an electrical or complex conductivity sensor ([0251]).
Brownhill does not explicitly teach the sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material.
The prior art by Brockway is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach wearable physiological sensors or electrodes that are configured to monitor physiological signals from an animal ([0001]).
Brockway teaches the sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material (the sensing electrodes may be composed of a stretchable graphene material that is highly conductive [0001, 0012, 0037, 0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Brownhill’s wearable sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material, as taught by Brockway. The stretchable graphene material is beneficial, as the graphene material will enhance the flexibility of the sensor (e.g., electrode) such that it can conform easily to the contours of the body surface (see paragraphs [0001, 0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway). Furthermore, the stretchable graphene material will enhance the sensor’s (e.g., electrode) conductive properties (see paragraphs [0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway).
Regarding claim 22, Brownhill teaches the method of claim 21. Brownhill does not explicitly teach wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises one or more stretchable graphene sensors.
The prior art by Brockway is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach wearable physiological sensors or electrodes that are configured to monitor physiological signals from an animal ([0001]).
Brockway teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises one or more stretchable graphene sensors (the sensing electrodes may be composed of a stretchable graphene material that is highly conductive [0001, 0012, 0037, 0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Brownhill’s skin-wearable printed sensor to be composed of a stretchable graphene material, as taught by Brockway. The stretchable graphene material is beneficial, as the graphene material will enhance the flexibility of the sensor (e.g., electrode) such that it can conform easily to the contours of the body surface (see paragraphs [0001, 0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway). Furthermore, the stretchable graphene material will enhance the sensor’s (e.g., electrode) conductive properties (see paragraphs [0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway).
Regarding claim 47, Brockway teaches wherein the skin-wearable sensor comprises one or more stretchable graphene sensors (the sensing electrodes may be composed of a stretchable graphene material that is highly conductive [0001, 0012, 0037, 0052]).
Regarding claim 48, Brownhill teaches wherein the sensor is an electrical sensor (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to measure the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]. Furthermore, the one or more sensors 406 may also include an electrical or complex conductivity sensor ([0251]).
Regarding claim 49, Brownhill teaches wherein the electrical sensor is selected from an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor, an electroencephalogram (EEC) sensor, an electromyogram (EMG) sensor, or any combination thereof (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to measure the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]).
Regarding claim 50, Brownhill teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises a skin-wearable printed EMG sensor (as stated previously in claim 13, the sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]).
10. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhavaraju et al. (US 2011/0224912 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0367654 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Bhavaraju teaches a method of identifying therapeutic agent ([abstract]), the method comprising:
contacting a wearable device comprising a skin-wearable sensor with a subject's skin (the monitoring sensor platform 330 may be adhered or coupled to the patient’s body 300 [0023, 0025, 0046]);
acquiring signals from the wearable device on the subject's skin (the monitoring sensor platform 330 is configured to obtain physiological signals (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) from the patient’s body 300 [0025-0026, 0029, 0046]);
administering an agent of interest to the subject (a medication or agent is administered to the patient [0051, 0059]);
acquiring signals from the wearable device on the subject's skin following administration of the agent of interest (the monitoring sensor platform 330 is configured to obtain physiological signals (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0029, 0046, 0059]);
comparing the signals of the subject before and after administration of the agent of interest (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059]); and
analyze a result from the comparison step to assess a physiological parameter of the subject (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059-0060]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]);
wherein the physiological parameter provides an indication that the agent of interest is a therapeutic agent (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the medication or agent is determined to have a therapeutic effect if the desired physiological outcome is achieved [0059]).
Bhavaraju does not explicitly teach the skin-wearable sensor to be a skin-wearable printed sensor.
The prior art by Cheng is analogous to Bhavaraju, as they both teach the use of wearable sensors ([0036, 0045]) and the delivery of agents (the agent or drug is administered to the patient [0036, 0040]).
Cheng teaches the skin-wearable sensor to be a skin-wearable printed sensor (the sensor patch 200 comprises a plurality of sensing electrodes 204 that are secured to the skin of a patient [0049, 0059, 0075]. Specifically, the plurality of sensing electrodes 204 may be printed on the elastic film 202 [0059, 0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Bhavaraju’s skin-wearable sensor to be a skin-wearable printed sensor, as taught by Brownhill. The advantage of such modification will allow the sensor to be printed onto an elastic film without any glue or adhesive between the sensor and the elastic film (see paragraph [0049, 0059] by Cheng).
11. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhavaraju et al. in view of Cheng et al., further in view of Khurana et al. (US 2019/0083353 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Bhavaraju in view of Cheng suggests the method of claim 32. Bhavaraju and Cheng do not explicitly teach wherein the therapeutic agent improves an injury on the subject.
The prior art by Khurana is analogous to Bhavaraju, as they both teach the administration of agents or medications to a patient ([0127-0129]).
Khurana teaches wherein the therapeutic agent improves an injury on the subject (the agents (e.g., medications and/or antibiotics) are provided to the patient to enhance wound healing [0126-0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the therapeutic agent suggested by Bhavaraju in view of Cheng to consist of medications and/or antibiotics that improves an injury, as taught by Khurana. This modification is beneficial, as the therapeutic agent (e.g., medications and/or antibiotics) will enhance blood flow and wound healing (see paragraphs [0126-0129] by Khurana).
12. Claims 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al., further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0367654 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Brownhill in view of Brockway suggests the system of claim 13. Brownhill teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises at least two electrodes (as stated previously in claim 13, the one or more sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]. Specifically, the one or more sensors 406 may include conductivity sensors and/or EMG sensors [0251]. Furthermore, the conductivity sensors may include electrodes [0230, 0251]).
Meanwhile, Brockway teaches wherein skin-wearable printed sensor comprises a conductive flexible film (the electrode sensing surface is constructed of a thin flexible sheet or film 200 with a conductive surface [0045]).
Brownhill and Brockway do not explicitly teach wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises:
an elastomeric substrate.
The prior art by Cheng is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach sensing electrodes that are coupled to a patient’s body ([0049, 0075]).
Cheng teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises:
An elastomeric (the sensor patch 200 may comprise a plurality of sensing electrodes 204 that are printed on an elastic substrate 202 [0044, 0049, 0059, 0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the skin-wearable printed sensor suggested by Brownhill in view of Brockway to comprise an elastomeric substrate, as taught by Cheng. This modification is beneficial, as elastomeric substrate can conform to various contours and/or swelling (e.g., bumps) of the skin surface (see paragraphs [0044, 0059, 0111]).
Regarding claim 42, Cheng teaches wherein a polyimide layer is in contact with the elastomeric substrate (the elastomeric substrate 202 may include a polyimide layer [0044, 0061]).
13. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al. and Cheng et al., further in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0359942 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Brownhill in view of Brockway and Cheng suggests the system of claim 40. Specifically, Brockway teaches wherein the electrodes comprise a graphene layer ([0011-0012, 0052]). Meanwhile, Cheng teaches a polyimide (PI) layer (the elastomeric substrate 202 may includes a polyimide layer [0044, 0061]).
Brownhill, Brockway, and Cheng do not explicitly teach wherein the graphene layer of the electrodes is in contact with the polyimide layer.
The prior art by Gao is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach sensing electrodes that are configured to monitor a biological signal from a patient ([abstract, 0052, 0066]).
Gao teaches wherein the graphene layer of electrodes is in contact with polyimide layer (the multimodal sensing layer 120 includes a polyimide film or substrate [0006, 0055]. Meanwhile, the graphene electrode 130 is laser scribed or engraved onto the polyimide film of the multimodal sensing layer 120 [0006, 0055, 0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the graphene layer and the polyimide layer suggested by Brownhill, Brockway, and Cheng to contact each other, as taught by Gao. This modification is beneficial, as it may enhance the sensor’s detection of vital signals from the patient (see paragraphs [0006, 0052, 0055, 0086] by Gao).
14. Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al. and Cheng et al, further in view of Davis et al. (US 2013/0110415 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Brownhill in view of Brockway and Cheng suggests the system of claim 40. Brownhill, Brockway, and Cheng do not explicitly teach wherein the conductive flexible film connects the device with electronics.
The prior art by Davis is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach wearable sensing devices ([0069-0071]).
Davis teaches wherein the conductive flexible film connects the device with electronics (the flexible strip 315 (e.g., conductive film) comprises electronic components that are connected with the wearable sensing components (e.g., sensor 210 or 310) [0069-0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the conductive flexible film suggested by Brownhill in view of Brockway and Cheng to connect the device with electronics, as taught by Davis. This modification is beneficial, as the conductive flexible film (e.g., flexible strip 315) has an encapsulation layer to protect the electronic components on the film which allows for maintaining a reliable connection to the wearable sensors (see paragraphs [0069-0071] by Davis).
Regarding claim 44, Davis teaches wherein the electronics comprise thin-film components (the electrical components are integrated on the flexible strip 315 (e.g., conductive film) [0070-0071]).
Regarding claim 45, Brownhill in view of Brockway, Cheng, and Davis suggests the system of claim 43. Davis teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the electronics comprise wireless components (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that each of the embodiments are drawn to conductive flexible films comprising electronics (the electronics of the flexible strip 315 and the electronics of the flexible strip 715 [0070-0071, 0095]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine each of the embodiments to arrive at an overall device similar to the one claimed. Specifically, the combination of the embodiments will result in the electronics having wireless components (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]). The advantage of such modification will provide the conductive flexible film with electronics that can wirelessly communicate with a display and/or body sensors (see paragraph [0095] by Davis).
Regarding claim 46, Davis teaches wherein the thin film components comprises antenna or Bluetooth (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]. The Examiner respectfully submits that that the wireless communication would inherently require the use of antennas or Bluetooth technology [0095]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
(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.
16. Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Brownhill et al.
Regarding claim 21, Brownhill teaches a method for monitoring an electrophysiological parameter of a subject (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]), the method comprising:
acquiring signals from a wearable device comprising a skin-wearable printed sensor over a subject's skin (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Furthermore, the electrodes 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]); and
assessing an injury on the subject using the acquired signals to provide real-time, continuous monitoring of the electrophysiological parameter of a subject (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to sense the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Meanwhile, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing during an electrical stimulation treatment [0258, 0276, 0297, 0301]. Specifically, processor 404 will continuously compare the measured muscle responses or contractions to a threshold muscle contraction value to determine the status or stage of the wound’s healing (e.g., 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100% healed) [0297, 0301-0302]).
Regarding claim 23, Brownhill teaches wherein the sensor is selected from an electromyogram (EMG) sensor or an electrical sensor (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to measure the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]. Furthermore, the one or more sensors 406 may also include an electrical or complex conductivity sensor ([0251]).
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 101 rejections noted above were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has provided an explanation below that describes how the prior art of record fails to suggest the corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 14, Brownhill in view of Brockway suggests the animal model system of claim 13. Brownhill teaches wherein the injury comprises a muscle injury (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded site of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]).
However, Brownhill and Brockway do not explicitly teach wherein the injury comprises biopsy punch-induced masseter muscle injury, wherein the animal model is a craniofacial VML model.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Statement on Communication via Internet
18. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792