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 Statement submitted on 14 August 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 4-5, 11, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 4-5, 11, and 17-20 contain minor typographical and grammatical errors.
- Claim 4, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “An apparatus as in claim 1 wherein” to “An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein”.
- Claim 5, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “An apparatus as in claim 1 wherein” to “An apparatus as in claim 1, wherein”.
- Claim 11, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “An apparatus as in claim 10 wherein” to “An apparatus as in claim 10, wherein”.
- Claim 17, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The method of claim 16 wherein” to “The method of claim 16, wherein”.
- Claim 18, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The method of claim 16 wherein” to “The method of claim 16, wherein”.
- Claim 19, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The method of claim 16 wherein” to “The method of claim 16, wherein”.
- Claim 20, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The method of claim 16 wherein” to “The method of claim 16, wherein”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by Mowery et al. (US 2019/0143116 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mowery teaches an apparatus for treating a condition of the eye (the system 601 can provide stimulation to treat an eye condition [abstract, 0082-0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]) comprising a pulse generator (controller 661 applies the electrical signal to the electrodes 111 [0082-0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]) coupled to an electrode carrier that carries a plurality of electrodes (the controller 661 is coupled to the disposable strips 615 which carries the electrodes 111 [0082-0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]), the pulse generator comprising circuitry including a controller configured to perform a method of treating an eye condition by delivery of therapy between at least first and second electrodes (the controller 661 is configured to apply a current between one electrode 111 and another electrode 111 on the same disposable therapy strip 615 [0082, FIG. 6A]), wherein the first and second electrodes are carried on the electrode carrier such that when the electrode carrier is worn by a patient, the first electrode is placed above the eye (the disposable strip 615 carries one or more electrodes 111 that are positioned on the upper eyelid [0025, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]), and the second electrode is placed below the eye (the disposable strip 615 carries one or more electrodes 111 that are positioned on the lower eyelid [0025, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]), and current passes between he superiorly positioned first electrode and the inferiorly positioned second electrode (the controller 661 is configured to apply a current between one electrode 111 and another electrode 111 on the same disposable therapy strip 615 [0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]. For example, the controller 661 can apply a current between a superior positioned electrode 111 and an inferior positioned electrode 111 on the disposable therapy strip 615 [0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Regarding claim 4, Mowery teaches wherein the electrode carrier is configured to position the first electrode on the upper eyelid (the disposable strip 615 carries one or more electrodes 111 that are positioned on the upper eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Regarding claim 6, Mowery teaches a third electrode (see the plurality of electrodes 111 and/or 641 [0082, FIG. 6A]) and the pulse generator is configured to use the first, second and third electrodes to issue therapy ([0082]).
Regarding claim 9, Mowery teaches wherein the third electrode is placed on a housing that holds the pulse generator (the pulse generator or controller 661 may be mounted on a housing that is worn on the patient’s neck [0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]. Furthermore, the controller 661 may attached to the electrode 641 via a conductor cable 642, tab, or connector unit [0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]), the housing being wearable about the neck of a patient to place the third electrode in contact with patient skin (as stated previously above, the controller 661 and electrode 641 are coupled to a housing that is worn on the patient’s neck [0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]. Specifically, this configuration allows the electrode 641 to be attached to the patient’s neck [0083]).
Regarding claim 16, Mowery teaches a method of treating an eye condition using an apparatus (the system 601 can provide stimulation to treat an eye condition [abstract, 0082-0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]) comprising a pulse generator coupled to a plurality of electrodes (the controller 661 applies the electrical signal to the electrodes 111 [0082-0083, FIGS. 6A-6B]), the plurality of electrodes comprising at least a first electrode disposed superior to an eye of a patient and a second electrode disposed inferior to the eye of the patient (the disposable strip 615 is configured to position the electrodes 111 on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]), the method comprising issuing an electrical therapy pulse between the first and second electrodes to generate a current that passes between the superiorly positioned first electrode and the inferiorly positioned second electrode (the controller 661 is configured to apply a current between one electrode 111 and another electrode 111 on the same disposable therapy strip 615 [0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]. For example, the controller 661 can apply a current between a superior positioned electrode 111 and an inferior positioned electrode 111 on the disposable therapy strip 615 [0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Regarding claim 17, Mowery teaches wherein the first and second electrodes are disposed on an electrode carrier that holds the first and second electrodes in respective superior and inferior position (the disposable strip 615 is configured to position the electrodes 111 on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Regarding claim 18, Mowery teaches wherein the first electrode is disposed on a superior eyelid of the eye, and the second electrode is disposed on an inferior eyelid of the eye (the disposable strip 615 is configured to position the electrodes 111 on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Regarding claim 20, Mowery teaches wherein the eye condition is retinitis pigmentosa ([abstract]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 2, 7-8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowery et al.
Regarding claim 2, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 1, further comprising an earpiece adapted to couple onto the ear of the patient (the controller 661 may be mounted to eyeglasses similar to one illustrated in FIG. 4A [0082-0083, FIG. 4A, FIGS. 6A-6B]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the eyeglasses 401 in figure 4A comprises elongated side members 420 that would come in contact with the user’s ears [FIG. 4A]).
Although Mowery teaches the pulse generator to carried by a frame (the controller 661 may be mounted to the frame or eyeglasses 401 [0082-0083, FIG. 4A, FIGS. 6A-6B]), Mowery does not explicitly teach the pulse generator to be carried by the earpiece portion of the frame.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Mowery teaches a frame comprising an earpiece (the frame or eyeglasses 401 comprises the elongated side members 420 that contact the user’s ears [FIG. 4A]) and a pulse generator (the controller 661 may be mounted on the eyeglasses 401 [0082-0083, FIG. 4A, FIGS. 6A-6B]), configuring the pulse generator to be mounted on the earpiece portion of the frame would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 6. Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein the third electrode is placed behind the ear.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Mowery teaches the use of a third electrode (electrodes 641 [0082, FIG. 6A]), configuring the third electrode to be placed behind the ear would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 6. Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein the third electrode is placed on the ear.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Mowery teaches the use of a third electrode (electrodes 641 [0082, FIG. 6A]), configuring the third electrode to be placed on the ear would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, Mowery teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of electrodes further includes a third electrode (see the plurality of electrodes 111 and/or 641 [0082, FIG. 6A]) and the pulse generator is configured to use the first, second and third electrodes to issue therapy ([0082]).
Mowery does not explicitly teach the third electrode to be placed behind the ear of the patient.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Mowery teaches the use of a third electrode (electrodes 641 [0082, FIG. 6A]), configuring the third electrode to be placed behind the ear would be a matter of rearranging the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowery et al. in view of Wagner (US 2014/0324147 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 1 further comprising a frame having an earpiece (the frame or eyeglasses 401 comprises the elongated side members 420 that contact the user’s ears [FIG. 4A]) and the pulse generator being carried by the frame (the controller 661 may be mounted to the frame or eyeglasses 401 [0082-0083, FIG. 4A, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Mowery does not explicitly teach the frame having a noserest.
The prior art by Wagner is analogous to Mowery, as they both teach a wearable stimulation device that is configured to treat the patient’s eye ([abstract, 0083]).
Wagner teaches the frame (spectacle-like frame 11 [abstract, 0071-0072, FIG. 1]) having an earpiece (earpieces 17 and 18 [0015, 0072, FIG. 1]) and a noserest (nosepiece 12 [abstract, 0072-0072, FIG. 1]).
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 Mowery’s frame to comprise a noserest, as taught by Wagner. The advantage of such modification will prevent the frame from falling off the patient’s head (see the [abstract] by Wagner).
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowery et al. in view of Franke et al. (US 2016/0121118 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 6. Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein the pulse generator is further configured to deliver therapy in a spatial pattern using the first second and third electrodes to issue therapy with at least first and second steps, wherein utilization of the first, second and third electrodes varies from the first to the second step.
The prior art by Franke is analogous to Mowery, as they both teach devices that are configured to an eye condition (stimulation of the ocular region [abstract, 0022, 0078]).
Franke teaches wherein the pulse generator is further configured to deliver therapy in a spatial pattern using the first second and third electrodes to issue therapy with at least first and second steps, wherein utilization of the first, second and third electrodes varies from the first to the second step (the stimulator is configured to apply a plurality of spatial patterns to the electrodes [abstract, 0017, 0102]. For example, a first and second spatial pattern can be delivered to the electrodes [abstract, 0102]. Specifically, each of the spatial patterns may utilize a different waveform [abstract, 0102]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the first spatial pattern would be used during a first step and the second spatial pattern would be used during a second step [0102]).
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 Mowery’s pulse generator to deliver different spatial patterns to the electrodes, as taught by Franke. The advantage of such modification may allow for treating dry eye or other forms of ocular discomfort (see the [abstract] and paragraphs [0017, 0102] by Franke).
10. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowery et al. in view of De Toni et al. (US 2017/0354818 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 1, wherein at least one of the first or second electrodes is an electrode having a gel surface providing conduction through the skin of a user (the electrodes 111 are coated with an electrically conductive gel that provides conduction through the tissue of the patient [0061, 0064]).
However, Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein the gel provides adhesion to the skin.
The prior art by De Toni is analogous to Mowery, as they both teach a wearable device that is configured to treat a patient’s eye ([abstract]).
De Toni teaches wherein the gel provides adhesion to the skin (the gel pockets 26 are positioned at eye level to increase the adhesion of the electrodes 16 to the eyelid [0080, 0117]).
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 Mowery’s gel surface to provide adhesion to the skin, as taught by De Toni. The advantage of such modification will increase the adhesion of the electrodes to the eyelid (see paragraphs [0080, 0117] by De Toni).
Regarding claim 14, De Toni teaches wherein at least one of the first or second electrodes is a bare metal electrode ([0016-0017]).
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowery et al. in view of De Toni et al., further in view of Onarheim et al. (US 2019/0001133 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 1. Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first or second electrodes is a dry electrode having a plurality of layers including at least metal and flexible polymer layers.
However, De Toni teaches wherein the first electrode has a plurality of layers including at least metal and flexible polymer layers ([0016]).
The prior art by Onarheim is analogous to Mowery, as they both teach stimulation electrodes that are positioned in a region of the patient’s eye (see paragraph [0316-0317]).
Mowery teaches wherein the first electrode is a dry electrode ([0078-0080, claim 43]).
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 Mowery’s electrode to include the metal and flexible polymer layers, as taught by De Toni. The advantage of such modification will improve the overall conductivity and flexibility of the electrode. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mowery’s electrode to be a dry electrode, as taught by Onarheim. The benefit of a dry electrode will reduce the need for skin preparation or conductive paste (see paragraph [0079] by Onarheim).
Double Patenting
12. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
13. Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite an apparatus for treating a condition of the eye (e.g., retinitis pigmentosa). Specifically, both sets of claims recite the apparatus comprising a pulse generator, an electrode carrier, a circuitry, a controller, a first electrode, and a second electrode. Furthermore, both sets of claims recite wherein the first electrode is placed above the eye and the second electrode is placed below the eye. Lastly, both sets of claims recites a current passing between the superiorly positioned first electrode and the inferiorly positioned second electrode.
Although not exhaustive, a brief matching of the pending claims to those of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2.
Application No. 18/679,964
U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
1
6
4
7
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
13
16
14
17
15
19
16
20
17
14. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2 in view of Mowery et al.
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2 teaches an apparatus as in claim 1. U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2 does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode carrier is configured to position the first electrode on the upper eyelid.
The prior art by Mowery is analogous to U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2, as they both teach a system that is configured to treat retinitis pigmentosa ([abstract]).
Mowery teaches wherein the electrode carrier is configured to position the first electrode on the upper eyelid (the disposable strip 615 carries a plurality of electrodes 111 that are positioned on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2’s electrode carrier to position the first electrode on the upper eyelid, as taught by Mowery. The advantage of such modification may improve the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa (see the [abstract] and paragraphs [0025, 0029, 0082] by Mowery).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2 teaches the method of claim 16. U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2 does not explicitly teach wherein the first electrode is disposed on a superior eyelid of the eye, and the second electrode is disposed on an inferior eyelid of the eye.
The prior art by Mowery is analogous to U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2, as they both teach a system that is configured to treat retinitis pigmentosa ([abstract]).
Mowery teaches wherein the first electrode is disposed on a superior eyelid of the eye, and the second electrode is disposed on an inferior eyelid of the eye (the disposable strip 615 carries a plurality of electrodes 111 that are positioned on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid [0025, 0029, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the U.S. Patent No. 12,023,498 B2’s electrode carrier to position the first electrode on the superior eyelid and the second electrode on the inferior eyelid, as taught by Mowery. The advantage of such modification may improve the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa (see the [abstract] and paragraphs [0025, 0029, 0082] by Mowery).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 5 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting 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 5, Mowery teaches an apparatus as in claim 1. Mowery does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode carrier is configured to position the first electrode on the forehead.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed configuration will result in the current passing between the superiorly positioned first electrode (e.g., electrode placed on the forehead) and the inferiorly positioned second electrode (e.g., electrode placed below the eye). Specifically, Mowery’s electrode carrier is designed to position the electrodes on the upper eyelid and the lower eyelid (the disposable strip 615 is configured to carry electrodes 111 that are positioned on the upper and lower eyelid [0025, 0082, FIGS. 6A-6B]). Based on this deficiency, Mowery does not explicitly suggest the claimed arrangement of the first electrode.
The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. 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.
Regarding claim 11, Mowery in view of Franke suggests an apparatus as in claim 10. Franke teaches wherein utilization of the first, second, and third electrodes varies from the first to the second step (the stimulator is configured to apply a plurality of spatial patterns to the electrodes [abstract, 0017, 0102]. For example, a first and second spatial pattern can be delivered to the electrodes [abstract, 0102]. Specifically, each of the spatial patterns may utilize a different waveform [abstract, 0102]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the first spatial pattern would be used during a first step and the second spatial pattern would be used during a second step [0102]).
However, Mowery and Frank do not explicitly teach wherein the utilization varies as follows: in the first stage, first total current is issued by the first and second electrodes to the third electrode, with the first electrode issuing a first percentage of the first total current and the second electrode issuing a second percentage of the first total current; in the second stage, second total current is issued by the first and second electrodes to the third electrode, with the first electrode issuing a third percentage of the second total current and the second electrode issuing a fourth percentage of the second total current. The Examiner respectfully submits that Mowery and Frank do not explicitly teach the electrodes to be utilized in the specific manner recited by the claim.
The Examiner 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.
Claim 12 is considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claim 12 depends upon claim 11.
Statement on Communication via Internet
16. 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
17. 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, Gary Jackson can be reached on (571)272-4697. 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.
/J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ANKIT D TEJANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796