DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 10, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 3-4: “the regulating element” should read “the temperature regulating element”;
Claim 10, lines 2-3: “the regulating element” should read “the temperature regulating element”;
Claim 13, lines 1-2: “the regulating element” should read “the temperature regulating element”;
Claim 14, lines 1-2: “the regulating element” should read “the temperature regulating element”;
Claim 2, line 8: “the data processing device” should read “the external data processing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22, 28, 31, 38, 42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saul et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0021145 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Saul discloses a system for regulating cerebrospinal fluid flow (Abstract; Figures 2, 4, 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082), comprising: a data processing device (controller communicates with external device and controls the valve drive; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058), configured to collect one or more biometric indicators associated with a patient (Paragraph 0015-0016), the biometric indicators selected from a heart rate, a blood pressure, a posture indicator, an exercise indicator, and an endogenous brain pressure (heart rate, position/posture, and inter-cranial pressure is measured; Paragraph 0015-0016); and a valve for regulating the fluid flow (valve 2000; Abstract; Figure 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082), comprising: a tubing, configured to allow fluid flow therethrough (tubing 2048 allows for cerebrospinal fluid to flow through; Figure 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082); a regulating element, arranged proximate to the tubing (valve in the fluidics device with moving chamber 2029 and diaphragm; Paragraph 0082; Figures 2, 4, and 20A-20B); an actuator, arranged proximate to the regulating element (valve drive in the internal device to drive valve and is proximate to valve in the fluidics device; Figures 2 and 4; Paragraph 0014 and 0058), the actuator being configured to manipulate a parameter associated with the regulating element (Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0058); and a control component (controller in the internal device; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058), configured to communicate with the data processing device and other devices and to control the actuator (controller communicates with external device and controls the valve drive; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 22, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. Saul further discloses wherein the data processing device is further configured to: calculate an estimated fluid production rate based on the one or more biometric indicators associated with the patient (cerebrospinal fluid volume is measured based on pressure measurements; Paragraph 0008 and 0015-0016); calculate a desired value based on the estimated fluid production rate (device can determine if the device should operate based on the flow parameter or pressure measured in the cerebrospinal fluid and send a value to the controller to activate thermal actuator and heat valve; Paragraph 0015-0016); and send the desired value to the control component (actuator can receive activation value to heat valve from the controller; Paragraph 0015-0016, 0021-0022, and 0057-0058; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 28, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. Saul further discloses wherein the valve further comprises a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a temperature sensor, a flowrate sensor, or a pressure sensor (pressure sensor, flow rate sensor; Paragraph 0015, 0057, 0088).
Regarding claim 31, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. Saul further discloses wherein the regulating element is configured to regulate resistance to the fluid flowing through the tubing (valve of Figure 16 squeezes tubing, as seen in Figure 20A-20B, to increase or decrease the resistance of fluid flow; Paragraph 0074-0075 and 0082), wherein the resistance is independent of intracranial pressure associated with a patient (controller controls resistance of flow based on the flow rate or volume, measured by the differential pressure sensor, that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 38, Saul discloses a method for regulating fluid flow (Abstract; Figures 2, 4, 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082), comprising: collecting one or more biometric indicators associated with a patient (Paragraph 0015-0016); calculating an estimated fluid production rate based on the one or more biometric indicators associated with the patient (cerebrospinal fluid volume is measured based on pressure measurements; Paragraph 0008 and 0015-0016), the one or more biometric indicators selected from a heart rate, a blood pressure, a posture indicator, an exercise indicator, and an endogenous brain pressure (heart rate, position/posture, and inter-cranial pressure is measured; Paragraph 0015-0016); calculating a desired value based on the estimated fluid production rate (device can determine if the device should operate based on the flow parameter or pressure measured in the cerebrospinal fluid and send a value to the controller to activate thermal actuator and heat valve; Paragraph 0015-0016); and sending the desired value to a valve for regulating fluid flowing therethrough (actuator can receive activation value to heat valve from the controller; Paragraph 0015-0016, 0021-0022, and 0057-0058; Figure 2), the valve including a tubing, configured to allow fluid flow therethrough (tubing 2048 allows for cerebrospinal fluid to flow through; Figure 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082); a regulating element, arranged proximate to the tubing (valve in the fluidics device with moving chamber 2029 and diaphragm; Paragraph 0082; Figures 2, 4, and 20A-20B); an actuator, arranged proximate to the regulating element (valve drive in the internal device to drive valve and is proximate to valve in the fluidics device; Figures 2 and 4; Paragraph 0014 and 0058), the actuator being configured to manipulate a parameter associated with the regulating element (Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0058); and a control component (controller in the internal device; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058), configured to communicate with other devices and to control the actuator (controller communicates with external device and controls the valve drive; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 42, Saul discloses the method of claim 38. Saul further discloses wherein communicating with a valve to regulate fluid flowing therethrough comprises controlling the regulating element to regulate resistance to the fluid flowing through the tubing (valve of Figure 16 squeezes tubing, as seen in Figure 20A-20B, to increase or decrease the resistance of fluid flow; Paragraph 0074-0075 and 0082), and wherein the resistance is independent of intracranial pressure associated with the patient (controller controls resistance of flow based on the flow rate or volume, measured by the differential pressure sensor, that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 45, Saul discloses the method of claim 38. Saul further discloses further comprising: receiving, by the control component of the valve, the desired value from a data processing device (controller at internal device receives information from data processing in external device, relating to the desired flow value that is used in comparison with the current flow rate/volume that is measured from the differential pressure sensor in the fluidic device; Paragraph 0008, 0021-0023, and 0098; Figure 2 and 4); controlling, by the control component of the valve, the actuator to actuate the regulating element (Paragraph 0021-0022, and 0098); sensing, by a sensor, a parameter associated with the regulating element (Paragraph 0014-0015, 0021-0022, and 0098); determining, by the control component of the valve, that the parameter associated with the regulating element is within a threshold range of the desired value (Paragraph 0021-0022, and 0098; Claim 1-4); and stopping, by the control component of the valve, the actuator upon determining that the parameter associated with the regulating element is within a threshold range of the desired value (Paragraph 0021-0022, and 0098; Claim 1-4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saul et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0021145 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saul teaches a valve for regulating cerebrospinal fluid flow (valve 2000; Abstract; Figure 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082), comprising: a tubing, configured to allow fluid flow therethrough (tubing 2048 allows for cerebrospinal fluid to flow through; Figure 20A-20B; Paragraph 0082); a regulating element, arranged proximate to the tubing (valve in the fluidics device with moving chamber 2029 and diaphragm; Paragraph 0082; Figures 2, 4, and 20A-20B); and an actuator, arranged proximate to the regulating element (valve drive in the internal device to drive valve and is proximate to valve in the fluidics device; Figures 2 and 4; Paragraph 0014 and 0058), the actuator being configured to manipulate a parameter associated with the regulating element (Paragraph 0014-0016 and 0058). The embodiment of Figure 20A-20B of Saul does not teach a temperature regulating element, and the actuator being configured to manipulate a parameter associated with the temperature regulating element.
However, the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul teaches a temperature regulating element (Nitinol wire 1612 with bellows 1619 and valve face 1622; Paragraph 0074; Figure 16), and the actuator being configured to manipulate a parameter associated with the temperature regulating element (valve drive provides electrical energy to the Nitinol valve; Figure 2, 4, and 16; Paragraph 0011, 0014, and 0074).
Saul is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul and have the device of the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the Nitinol-wire based valve with the housing and the thermal actuator of the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul. This allows for the automatic control of the valve based on the external controller (Saul; Paragraph 0011 and 0014-0016).
Regarding claim 2, Saul teaches the valve of claim 1. Saul further teaches further comprising a control component (controller in the internal device; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058), configured to communicate with an external data processing device and to control the actuator (controller communicates with external device and controls the valve drive; Figure 2; Paragraph 0058), the data processing device being configured to: collect one or more biometric indicators associated with a patient (Paragraph 0015-0016), the biometric indicators selected from a heart rate, a blood pressure, a posture indicator, an exercise indicator, and an endogenous brain pressure (heart rate, position/posture, and inter-cranial pressure is measured; Paragraph 0015-0016); calculate an estimated fluid production rate based on the one or more biometric indicators associated with the patient (cerebrospinal fluid volume is measured based on pressure measurements; Paragraph 0008 and 0015-0016); calculate a desired value based on the estimated fluid production rate (device can determine if the device should operate based on the flow parameter or pressure measured in the cerebrospinal fluid and send a value to the controller to activate thermal actuator and heat valve; Paragraph 0015-0016); and send the desired value to the control component (actuator can receive activation value to heat valve from the controller; Paragraph 0015-0016, 0021-0022, and 0057-0058; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Saul teaches the valve of claim 2. Saul further teaches further comprising a housing (housing of valve; Figure 16) comprising an insulating element configured to reduce heat conduction between the housing and an environment (insulated chamber 1620 prevents heat to escape from housing into the environment; Figure 16; Paragraph 0074-0075), wherein the housing is configured to accommodate the tubing, the regulating element, the actuator, and the control component (housing of Figure 16 of Saul contains tubing of Figure 20 of Saul, Nitinol valve of Figure 16 of Saul, valve drive, and controller – valve drive and controller are both in the internal device, thus located in the same housing, as shown in Figure 2; Paragraph 0058, 0074-0075, and 0106).
Regarding claim 5, Saul teaches the valve of claim 1. Saul further teaches further comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a temperature sensor, a flowrate sensor, or a pressure sensor (pressure sensor, flow rate sensor; Paragraph 0015, 0057, 0088).
Regarding claim 14, Saul teaches the valve of claim 1. Saul further teaches wherein the regulating element is configured to regulate resistance to the fluid flowing through the tubing (valve of Figure 16 squeezes tubing, as seen in Figure 20A-20B, to increase or decrease the resistance of fluid flow; Paragraph 0074-0075 and 0082), wherein the resistance is independent of intracranial pressure associated with a patient (controller controls resistance of flow based on the flow rate or volume, measured by the differential pressure sensor, that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 25, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. The embodiment of Figure 20 of Saul does not teach wherein the valve further comprises a housing comprising an insulating element configured to reduce heat conduction between the housing and an environment.
However, the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul teaches wherein the valve further comprises a housing (housing of valve; Figure 16) comprising an insulating element configured to reduce heat conduction between the housing and an environment (insulated chamber 1620 prevents heat to escape from housing into the environment; Figure 16; Paragraph 0074-0075).
Saul is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul and have the device of the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the Nitinol-wire based valve with the housing and the thermal actuator of the embodiment of Figure 16 of Saul. This allows for the automatic control of the valve based on the external controller (Saul; Paragraph 0011 and 0014-0016).
The combination of Saul further teaches wherein, the housing is configured to accommodate the tubing, the regulating element, the actuator, and the control component (housing of Figure 16 of Saul contains tubing of Figure 20 of Saul, Nitinol valve of Figure 16 of Saul, valve drive, and controller – valve drive and controller are both in the internal device, thus located in the same housing, as shown in Figure 2; Paragraph 0058, 0074-0075, and 0106).
Claim(s) 10, 23, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saul et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0021145 A1) in view of Lattanzio et al. (Publication No. US 2009/0275924 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Saul teaches the valve of claim 2. Saul does not teach wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element.
However, Lattanzio teaches wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element (sensor can obtain temperature measurement and switch valve based on temperature measurement that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0014, 0051, 0060, and 0077).
Saul and Lattanzio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of Lattanzio and have the device of Saul to additional contain the temperature sensor of Lattanzio, with the controller of Saul being able to control the valve, based on the desired temperature, as taught by Lattanzio. This allows the device to detect abnormal changes of temperature in the body and treat the temperature difference using the device (Lattanzio; Paragraph 0051 and 0077). Regarding claim 23, Saul discloses the system of claim 22. Saul does not teach wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element.
However, Lattanzio teaches wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element (sensor can obtain temperature measurement and switch valve based on temperature measurement that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0014, 0051, 0060, and 0077).
Saul and Lattanzio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of Lattanzio and have the device of Saul to additional contain the temperature sensor of Lattanzio, with the controller of Saul being able to control the valve, based on the desired temperature, as taught by Lattanzio. This allows the device to detect abnormal changes of temperature in the body and treat the temperature difference using the device (Lattanzio; Paragraph 0051 and 0077).
Regarding claim 40, Saul discloses the method of claim 38. Saul does not teach wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature; and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element.
However, Lattanzio teaches wherein the desired value comprises a desired temperature and wherein the parameter associated with the regulating element is temperature associated with the regulating element (sensor can obtain temperature measurement and switch valve based on temperature measurement that is desired to be achieved; Paragraph 0014, 0051, 0060, and 0077).
Saul and Lattanzio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of Lattanzio and have the device of Saul to additional contain the temperature sensor of Lattanzio, with the controller of Saul being able to control the valve, based on the desired temperature, as taught by Lattanzio. This allows the device to detect abnormal changes of temperature in the body and treat the temperature difference using the device (Lattanzio; Paragraph 0051 and 0077).
Claim(s) 13, 30, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saul et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0021145 A1) in view of McCarrick (Patent No. US 3,212,337 A).
Regarding claim 13, Saul teaches the valve of claim 1. Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax and at least one additive.
However, the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul teaches wherein the regulating element comprises silicone oil and at least one additive, magnetite (Paragraph 0080).
Saul is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul and have the device of the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the silicone oil/magnetite additive valve with the housing and the thermal actuator of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul. This allows for the adjustment of the valve based on the volume or the temperature of the fluid (Saul; Paragraph 0083).
The combination of Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax.
However, McCarrick teaches wherein the regulating element comprises wax or silicone oil (Column 6, lines 32-43).
McCarrick and Saul are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal actuators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (silicone oil of Saul) for another (wax of McCarrick) since the substitution of the regulating element fluid would have yielded predictable results, namely, a fluidic valve that expands and contracts in response to the heating and cooling of the fluid from the thermal actuator. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 30, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax and at least one additive.
However, the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul teaches wherein the regulating element comprises silicone oil and at least one additive, magnetite (Paragraph 0080).
Saul is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul and have the device of the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the silicone oil/magnetite additive valve with the housing and the thermal actuator of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul. This allows for the adjustment of the valve based on the volume or the temperature of the fluid (Saul; Paragraph 0083).
The combination of Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax.
However, McCarrick teaches wherein the regulating element comprises wax or silicone oil (Column 6, lines 32-43).
McCarrick and Saul are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal actuators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (silicone oil of Saul) for another (wax of McCarrick) since the substitution of the regulating element fluid would have yielded predictable results, namely, a fluidic valve that expands and contracts in response to the heating and cooling of the fluid from the thermal actuator. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Regarding claim 41, Saul discloses the method of claim 38. Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax and at least one additive.
However, the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul teaches wherein the regulating element comprises silicone oil and at least one additive, magnetite (Paragraph 0080).
Saul is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts/valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul and have the device of the embodiment of Figures 20A-20B and 30 of Saul to have the silicone oil/magnetite additive valve with the housing and the thermal actuator of the embodiment of Figure 18 of Saul. This allows for the adjustment of the valve based on the volume or the temperature of the fluid (Saul; Paragraph 0083).
The combination of Saul does not teach wherein the regulating element comprises wax.
However, McCarrick teaches wherein the regulating element comprises wax or silicone oil (Column 6, lines 32-43).
McCarrick and Saul are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of thermal actuators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known element (silicone oil of Saul) for another (wax of McCarrick) since the substitution of the regulating element fluid would have yielded predictable results, namely, a fluidic valve that expands and contracts in response to the heating and cooling of the fluid from the thermal actuator. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)B).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saul et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0021145 A1) in view of Samoocha et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0046277 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Saul discloses the system of claim 20. Saul does not teach wherein the data processing device comprises a wearable device.
However, Samoocha teaches wherein the data processing device comprises a wearable device (external activation unit 900 is mounted on a headset 902 and contains processing circuitry; Figure 2 and 9; Paragraph 0454-0455).
Saul and Samoocha are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerebrospinal fluid shunts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saul to have the to incorporate the teachings of Samoocha and have the device of Saul to mount the external device of Saul on a headset, as taught by Samoocha. This allows for the device to be portable and allows for a strong connection between the shunt and the data processing device (Samoocha; Paragraph 0454-0455).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781