Detailed Action
This is the Final Rejection based on application 18/595,034 filed on 03/04/2024, and which claims as amended on 12/11/2025 have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to provisional application 63/488,299 and as such the earliest priority date of 03/03/2023 has been granted to the instant application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments have been sufficient to overcome the original drawing objections, claim objections, and most of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) present in the Non-Final Action.
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.
Claim 20 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 20 recites the limitation “an anchor” on line 1. It is unclear if this is the same as the interchangeable anchor of claim 17, or a second separate anchor.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang US 20170157486 A1, in view of Pei-Sung Chuang GB 2546539 A in further view of Hovland et al. US 20220072404 A1.
Regarding claim 1:
Chuang teaches a method for water-based training (A swim training method using a swim training system is specifically stated in the abstract), comprising: receiving input through a cord system (training device 100 which includes connecting component 110, wearing component 120, fastening component 130, sensor 140 and processing device 200 as shown in figure 1) to begin a training session for a user (Paragraph [0035] states that the input module is configured to provide user information which includes swim stroke to the processing module of processing device 200 which would inherently include when the user begins the swim training) utilizing the cord system that is anchored (see figure 1 which depicts the cord system anchored with fixing object A and being used by the user); initiating a training session utilizing the cord system (The examiner notes this is merely reciting the function of the previous step of beginning the training session. Furthermore as shown in figure 8 and 9 the smartphone component of the invention has a starting point where no data has been collected and live tracking therefore the exercise session must be initiated); performing sensor measurements associated with user actions and an environment (Paragraph [0038] outlines how the tension measured by the sensor 140 is the amount of force generated by the user swimming); providing feedback to the user during the training session (“The comparison exercise information, the training exercise information, and the comparison result are presented in sound by the output module to notify the user.” See paragraph [0074].The examiner notes that the sound output regarding the comparison information and training information is a type of feedback); and reporting metrics regarding the training session from the cord system (The examiner notes that paragraph [0074] outlines various types of metrics displayed by the output module of the invention and figure 11 is an example screen showing various collected/reported metrics of the user’s session.)
PNG
media_image1.png
444
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
356
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
356
202
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chuang fails to teach utilizing a sensor system enclosed within a waterproof frame configured to measure tension forces applied to an elastomeric tether of the cord system and including adaptive adjustments generated by a logic engine based on the sensor measurements.
Pei-Sung, however, teaches an invention similar to that of the US application Chuang discussed above, and further teaches a sensor system enclosed within a waterproof frame (“The input module 147, the processing module 148 and the output module 149 are located within the waterproof shell 145 to prevent from damage caused by moisture.” See page 6 lines 22-24) configured to measure tension forces applied to an elastomeric tether of the cord system (“In one embodiment in Fig. 4A, the connecting component 11a is an elastic strap” See page 8 lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting component of the US application of Chuang to be elastomeric as taught by the UK application since the invention is the same with alternate embodiments of the connecting components and an elastic strap still allows the tension force created by the user pulling on the strap while swimming to be measured, and to modify the housing of the sensor of the US document to be waterproof as taught by the UK document, as the components of the housing of the US document are stated throughout to be “liquid resistant” to protect the housed electronics, and are shown to be used in water so making it waterproof would provide more protection of the electronics inside.
The invention taught by the combination of Chuang and Pei-Sung however, still fails to teach adaptive adjustments generated by a logic engine based on the sensor measurements.
Hovland, however, teaches a timing device for swimming including a housing defining an aperture, an elongated member extendable from the housing, and an encoder assembly (See paragraph [0005]) and further teaches adaptive adjustments generated by a logic engine based on the sensor measurements (“Additionally or alternatively, the timing device 10 may also be configured to perform a timing sequence that utilizes information from a network/cloud 354 (FIG. 33) and/or the memory 128 of the controller 62. The information may include historical data related to a common user 54, another person, and/or any other source. Additionally or alternatively, the timing device 10 may be configured to calculate an optimized time in which various portions of timing sequences can be combined to illustrate a target scenario.” See paragraph [0047], with the examiner noting that the historical data related to a common user would be the sensor data gathered from each training session.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaluation/performance tracking system of Chuang to include adaptive adjustments generated by a logic engine as taught by Hovland, as this would allow the system to more accurately track changes in user performance, or track multiple users at once, by differentiating the distinct characteristics of the user’s performance as they swim and evaluating the performance in real-time accordingly.
Regarding claim 2:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving user preferences for implementing the training session (Paragraph [0007] of the specification of the instant application outlines what the user preferences for implementing the session are and states “may include speed, distance travelled, maximum forces/minimum forces, heart rate target, and/or time” and as such the screenshot of figure 10 of Chuang which shows time, speed, calories, force, max force, average force, average speed, and best time on the “training tab” of the output module, show that the user wanted these metrics tracked during the training session, as described in the specification of the instant application).
PNG
media_image4.png
640
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor system includes one or more force sensors for measuring forces generated by the user (“Since the user is restrained by the training device 100, the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming, is equal to the tension in the connecting component 110, the tension measured by the sensor 140 is the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming.” See paragraph [0038].) including at least maximum tension and average tension (See figure 10 which depicts the metrics of time, maximum force, and average force collected during the training session).
Regarding claim 4:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cord system attaches to floating equipment of the user, clothing, a strap, or a harness (“The wearing component 120, such as a belt, is configured to be worn by the user so as to fasten the first section 111 of the connecting component 110 to the user.” See paragraph [0025] where a belt around the waist of the user as depicted in figure 1 is being considered a strap).
Regarding claim 5:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cord system communications with one or more wireless devices to provide the feedback to the user (“The wireless communication module 145 is configured to transmit the tension measured by the tension measurement module 144 to the processing device 200.” See paragraph [0030]) to provide the feedback to the user (The examiner notes that as stated above in figure 1 the processing device 200 includes the output module which provides feedback to the user).
Regarding claim 6:
Chuang teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the feedback includes instructions for the training session.
Hovland, however, teaches a timing device for swimming including a housing defining an aperture, with an elongated member extendable from the housing through the aperture, and further teaches wherein the feedback includes instructions for the training session (“Then, the timing device 10, through the speaker 96, may direct the user 54 to prepare for the start of the timing sequence. After, the timing device 10 may beep or otherwise indicate to the user 54 that they are to begin extending the elongated member 50 from the housing 58.” See paragraph [0035]. The examiner notes that the direction to start swimming is an instruction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chuang to specifically include an application run by the remote device as taught by Hovland, as Chuang already shows a specific input/output display of a remote device for executing the swim training method of the invention.
Regarding claim 7:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metrics includes at least duration of the training session, maximum force exerted, and average force exerted (See figure 10 which depicts the metrics of time, maximum force, and average force collected during the training session).
Regarding claim 8:
Chuang as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cord system is waterproof and utilized while the user is in the water (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Chuang as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metrics are communicated to one or more authorized devices associated with the cord system (Paragraph [0074] discusses the various ways the metrics regarding the user’s session are can be communicated, with fig. 11 depicted a display screen of the output module of the processing device 200 which has been stated to be a smartphone of the user, and is therefore an authorized device).
Regarding claim 10:
Chuang teaches a cord system for water-based training (See abstract), comprising: an interface attaching to a user or equipment in water (See figure 1 which depicts swim training system 1 which includes training device 100 which further includes a connecting component 110, a wearing component 120, a fastening component 130, and a sensor 140 attached to a user and an anchor); logic in communication with the sensor interface implementing a training session for a user (See figure 7 which is a flow chart of the logic of the system which causes the system to collect the data from the training session and output the feedback to the user based on the data collected), the logic provides feedback directly or indirectly to the user (“The comparison exercise information, the training exercise information, and the comparison result are presented in sound by the output module to notify the user.” See paragraph [0074].The examiner notes that the sound output regarding the comparison information and training information is a type of feedback); and an anchor (fixing object A) anchoring the elastomeric band (“As a result, when the user's swimming distance achieve a limited length of the connecting component 110, the user is restrained by the connecting component 110 so that the user is not able to swim toward a direction away from the fixing object A, which is located around the swimming pool.” See paragraph [0025] and figure 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
646
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chuang fails to teach an elastomeric band connected to the interface, a sensor interface connected to the elastomeric band for performing measurements and including at least one force sensor configured to measure tension forces applied to the elastomeric band, and that logic includes a logic engine configured to adapt training instructions based on the sensor measurements, wherein the sensor interface, logic and associated electronics are enclosed within a waterproof frame configured for operation while in water.
The examiner notes however, that Chuang does teach a sensor interface (Sensor 140) connected to the connecting component which is how the system measures the tension/forces exerted by the user swimming (“Since the user is restrained by the training device 100, the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming, is equal to the tension in the connecting component 110, the tension measured by the sensor 140 is the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming.” See paragraph [0038]), the connecting component being an elastomeric band is not specifically taught.
Pei-Sung, however, teaches an invention similar to that of the US application Chuang discussed above, and further an elastomeric band connected to the interface (“In one embodiment in Fig. 4A, the connecting component 11a is an elastic strap” See page 8 lines 4-5), and a sensor interface connected to the elastomeric band for performing measurements and including at least one force sensor configured to measure tension forces applied to the elastomeric band (“The mechanical quantity detector is for detecting mechanical quantities, such as a magnitude of a strength (or a tensial stress) borne by the connecting component 11 or a variation of a diameter of the connecting component 11, The timer is for measuring a time such as a span of the strength applied on the connecting component 3 3 or a span of the training process.” See page 5 lines 10-15.), wherein the sensor interface, logic and associated electronics are enclosed within a waterproof frame configured for operation while in water (“In addition, the detecting component 14 further comprises a waterproof shell 145 which is made of polymer. The input module 147, the processing module 148 and the output module 149 are located within the waterproof shell 145 to prevent from damage caused by moisture.” See page 6 lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting component of the US application of Chuang to be elastomeric as taught by the UK application, and for the housing of the sensor module to be waterproof since the invention is the same with alternate embodiments of the connecting components and an elastic strap still allows the tension force created by the user pulling on the strap while swimming to be measured, and since the US application of Chuang already includes water resistant components of the housing to protect from damage, the user would be able to use the system in/around water without risking damage or breaking the internal components.
The combination of Chuang and Pei-Sung however, still fails to teach that the logic includes a logic engine configured to adapt training instructions based on the sensor measurements.
Hovland, however teaches a timing device for swimming including a housing defining an aperture, an elongated member extendable from the housing, and an encoder assembly (See paragraph [0005]), and further teaches wherein the logic includes a logic engine configured to adapt training instructions based on the sensor measurements (“Additionally or alternatively, the timing device 10 may also be configured to perform a timing sequence that utilizes information from a network/cloud 354 (FIG. 33) and/or the memory 128 of the controller 62. The information may include historical data related to a common user 54, another person, and/or any other source. Additionally or alternatively, the timing device 10 may be configured to calculate an optimized time in which various portions of timing sequences can be combined to illustrate a target scenario.” See paragraph [0047], with the examiner noting that the historical data related to a common user would be the sensor data gathered from each training session.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the evaluation/performance tracking system of Chuang to include adaptive adjustments generated by a logic engine as taught by Hovland, as this would allow the system to more accurately track changes in user performance, or track multiple users at once, by differentiating the distinct characteristics of the user’s performance as they swim and evaluating the performance in real-time accordingly.
Regarding claim 11:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 10, wherein the interface attaches to floating equipment of the user, attaches to or is integrated with clothing of the user, is a strap for attaching to a user, or is a harness for attaching to a user (“The wearing component 120, such as a belt, is configured to be worn by the user so as to fasten the first section 111 of the connecting component 110 to the user.” See paragraph [0025] where a belt worn by a user is a strap, and could be considered clothing worn by the user as well).
Regarding claim 12:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 10, wherein the sensor interface includes a force sensor (The examiner notes the sensor 140 of Chuang includes tension sensors to measure the forces generated by the user on the elastomeric strap must have a force interface since it measures the forces if the force interface is simply a part of the sensor interface which measures force as claimed.) for measuring forces applied to the elastomeric band by the user or equipment (“Since the user is restrained by the training device 100, the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming, is equal to the tension in the connecting component 110, the tension measured by the sensor 140 is the instantaneous forward force generated by the user, who is swimming.” See paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 13:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 10, wherein the anchor attaches to a side of a body of water (See figure 1).
Regarding claim 14:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 13, wherein the sensor interface includes a transceiver for communicating with one or more wireless devices (The examiner notes that paragraph [0042] gives an example as to how the Bluetooth communication module of the training device allows the forces measured to be communicated to the processing device 200 which is a smartphone).
Regarding claim 15:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 10, further comprising: a user interface (input module 210) for receiving commands from a user and providing feedback (“The input module 210 and the output module 240 are, for example, a touch panel of the smart phone or the tablet PC, or a wireless communication module of the smart phone or the tablet PC.” See paragraph [0041]. The examiner notes that the output module has been stated to provide feedback to the user above in claim 10).
Regarding claim 16:
Chuang as modified teaches the cord system of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the feedback instructs the user regarding effort to expend.
Hovland, however, teaches a timing device for swimming includes a housing defining an aperture, with an elongated member extendable from the housing through the aperture, and further teaches wherein the feedback instructs the user regarding effort to expend (“Then, the timing device 10, through the speaker 96, may direct the user 54 to prepare for the start of the timing sequence. After, the timing device 10 may beep or otherwise indicate to the user 54 that they are to begin extending the elongated member 50 from the housing 58.” See paragraph [0035]. The examiner notes that the direction to start swimming is an instruction regarding an effort to expend, since swimming would be the activity where the user expends effort, and when to start is an instruction.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chuang to specifically include an application run by the remote device as taught by Hovland, as Chuang already shows a specific input/output display of a remote device for executing the swim training method of the invention.
Regarding claim 17:
Chuang teaches a cord system for water-based training, comprising: an interface attaching to a user or equipment in water (See figure 1 which depicts swim training system 1 which includes training device 100 which further includes a connecting component 110, a wearing component 120, a fastening component 130, and a sensor 140 attached to a user and an anchor); a sensor interface (Sensor 140) connected to the elastomeric band (See figure 1) for performing measurements (The examiner notes this is merely a recitation of the function of a sensor); logic for implementing a training session for a user (See figure 7 which is a flow chart of the logic of the system which causes the system to collect the data from the training session and output the feedback to the user based on the data collected), wherein the logic provides feedback directly or indirectly to the user (“The comparison exercise information, the training exercise information, and the comparison result are presented in sound by the output module to notify the user.” See paragraph [0074].The examiner notes that the sound output regarding the comparison information and training information is a type of feedback); and an interchangeable anchor including a removable connector (“The fastening component 130, such as a hook or a loop, is configured to fasten the second section 120 of the connecting component to a fixing object A around the swimming pool or the water tank.” See paragraph [0025]) configured to attach to multiple types of fixed points on land or water and that attach to the elastomeric band (“The fixing object A, for example, is a pillar, a railing, an armrest, or an unmovable object around the swimming pool. As a result, when the user's swimming distance achieve a limited length of the connecting component 110, the user is restrained by the connecting component 110 so that the user is not able to swim toward a direction away from the fixing object A, which is located around the swimming pool.” See paragraph [0025]).
Chuang fails to specifically teach an elastomeric band is connected to the interface, but the examiner notes that the connecting component, which is a tether, is attached to the interface attached to the user can be a rope or a strap.
Pei-Sung, however, teaches an invention similar to that of the US application Chuang discussed above, and further teaches that the system includes an elastomeric tether (“In one embodiment in Fig. 4A, the connecting component 11a is an elastic strap” See page 8 lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting component of the US application of Chuang to be elastomeric as taught by the UK application since the invention is the same with alternate embodiments of the connecting components and an elastic strap still allows the tension force created by the user pulling on the strap while swimming to be measured.
Regarding claim 18:
Chuang as modified teaches the cord system of claim 17, but fails to teach wherein the user controls the cord system utilizing an application executed by a wireless device that communicates with the cord system through an interface. The examiner notes that as discussed above in claim 17, there is a program executed by the processing module which causes the data to be collected by the sensors, transmitted to the smartphone processing device of the user, and output the results/feedback for the user to view on a display, however an application executed by the wireless device, which is the smartphone, is specifically is not discussed.
Hovland, however, teaches a timing device for swimming includes a housing defining an aperture, with an elongated member extendable from the housing through the aperture, and further teaches wherein the user controls the cord system utilizing an application executed by a wireless device that communicates with the cord system through an interface (“the user 54 may initiate a timing sequence through any means known in the art, such a start button 122 (FIG. 8), an application 158 (FIG. 8) on the electronic device 64 (FIG. 8), etc.” See paragraph [0058] with paragraph [0073] further specifying how the application on the remote electronic device communicates with/controls the rest of the system, such as where it states “With reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, an application 158 on the electronic device 64 may be configured to utilize a device link interface to interact with the timing device 10. When connected to the timing device 10, the application 158 may be configured to utilize information from the controller 62.”)
In addition, Hovland teaches providing instructions for the user to train through the wireless device (The examiner notes that paragraph [0035] as stated above shows the user can use the electronic device to initiate a timing sequence with the application, and it further states how the starting beep to signal a suer to being swimming is completed as a result of the selection in the application, which is an instruction, with paragraph [0045] further specifying that the system can use the phones speakers to provide the starting instruction where it states, “For example, a standard timing system may be coupled to the timing device 10 for producing the audible noise and/or an electronic device 64 may be utilized”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chuang to specifically include an application run by the remote device as taught by Hovland, as Chuang already shows a specific input/output display of a remote device for executing the swim training method of the invention.
Regarding claim 19:
Chuang as modified by Hovland teaches the cord system of claim 18, wherein the cord system communicates instructions for the user to train through the wireless device (See rejection of claim 18).
Regarding claim 20:
Chuang as modified discloses the cord system of claim 17, wherein an anchor (fixing object A. The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, the interchangeable anchor of claim 17 which has been specified to include a removable connector, is being considered a separate structure from the anchor claimed in the instant claim, as paragraph [0022] of the specification of the instant application states , “The anchor 122 is a fixed device for securing the cord system 122 to a side, edge, buoy, or other portion of the pool 102 or the training environment 100. The anchor 122 may connect to, anchor in, or set on structures, fixtures, or components at the edge of the pool 102. For example, the anchor 122 may connect to vents, filters, anchor points, an edge 123 of the pool 102, furniture, fixtures, or so forth. In one embodiment, the anchor 122 may extend vertically from the edge 123 or side of the pool 102.” Therefore the fixing object A Chuang which is stated to be “for example, is a pillar, a railing, an armrest, or an unmovable object around the swimming pool”, in paragraph [0025] is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as the anchor of claim 20. ) attaches to a side of a body of the water (See figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 112(b) rejection presented in regards to claim 20 the rejection from the previous Non-Final action has been maintained as the issue of whether the anchor claimed in claim 20 and the interchangeable anchor claimed in claim 17 are the same or different structures has not been resolved. Throughout the specification only one “anchor” is discussed which in paragraph [0022] is stated as being a plurality of possible structures, however with the amendment of claim 17 now including that the anchor includes a removable connector configured to attach to multiple types of fixed points on land or water and attach to the elastomeric band, it appears that the applicant is meaning to claim the base 126 in claim 17 which is why different structures from the main reference Chuang were used for the interchangeable anchor of claim 17 and “an anchor” in claim 20.
In regards to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Chuang, and the rejections of claims 10 and 17 under 35 USC 103 in view of the combinations of Chuang and Pei-Sung the applicant’s amendments required a new search and consideration and thereby a new rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of the combinations of Chuang, Pei-Sung, and Hovland as presented above. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant in that the combination of The applicant’s amendments merely reordered claim limitations from dependent claims which were rejected under 35 USC 103 separately in the previous Non-Final Action. In regards to the applicant’s arguments as to why the references of Chuang and Pei-Sung cannot be combined, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly the inventions are substantially similar in that they have almost the same structures and functions, including tension sensors meant to be acted upon by a connecting member attached at one end to an anchor/base around or in a pool or body of water, and the other end attached to a user who exerts forces up[on the connecting member to engage the force/strain sensor and have the tension measured by a sensor and controller housed in a housing for data collection and comparison. Modifying the US application of Chuang to use an elastomeric band as the connecting component which is taught in the UK application of Pei-Sung would not require fundamental non-obvious modifications as both applications from the same inventor require the same structures and perform the same functions to measure the forces exerted on the connecting member through a strain gauge or force sensor as noted in the rejection above. Furthermore, in regards to Chuang not teaching that the measurement module is not in water, enclosed within a waterproof housing, and not described as being protected for potential underwater operation, the examiner notes that none of these limitations are found in the claims and that the applicant is arguing a narrower scope than the claimed limitations present. What is claimed in claim 1 is a sensor enclosed in a water proof frame and configured to measure the tension forces of the cord system, which is taught by the modification of Chuang and Pei-Sung, furthermore while claim 10 requires that the cord system is used in water, Pei-Sung explicitly states as mentioned in the rejections above that the shell is waterproof and designed to protect the internal components of the input module 147, the processing module 148 and the output module 149 from moisture and that the invention is used for swimming activities and therefore can be used in water.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/Megan Anderson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784