DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 11 is cancelled and claim 21 is added as of the October 3, 2024 preliminarily amendment.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 6, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,994 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1-20 contain additional limitations requiring the substantially flexible substrate to have a first, wound-facing side and a second side opposite the first side; the first conductive ink having a first impedance; and the second conductive ink having a second impedance different from the first impedance, and is thus more specific, in effect making the invention of patented claims 1-20 a "species" of the "generic" invention of instant claims 1-10 and 12-20. It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
6. Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,994 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1-20 contain additional limitations requiring a plurality of electronic components, and is thus more specific, in effect making the invention of patented claims 1-20 a "species" of the "generic" invention of instant claim 21. It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0031231 A1) in view of Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (US 8,948,839 B1; hereinafter referred to as Longinotti).
8. With regard to claim 1, Hunt discloses a sensor sheet for use with a wound monitoring and/or therapy apparatus (sensor enabled wound dressing, 600, 1200; Figs. 2A, 2B, 6, 12; abstract; [0005-0023]), the sensor sheet (600, 1200) comprising: a plurality of electronic components (one or more electronics module, 630, 1202) comprising a first electronic component (each module including at least one controller and one power source; [0009]; may also include a real-time clock, miscellaneous resistors, capacitors, connectors, charge controllers, and other power supplies; [0252]) including a first electrical connector (one of plurality of connectors, 640, 1204; connectors can be pins, leads, bumps, surface mounts (SMT), or the like) configured to electrically connect the first electronic component ([0276-0277]); a substantially flexible substrate (sheet or substrate, 610, 1230) supporting the plurality of electronic components (630, 1202; [0276-0277]); a first track (first of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) comprising first conductive ink (“conductive copper, conductive ink (such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc.), or the like”) positioned on the substantially flexible substrate (610, 1230; [0277]), the first track (first 610, 1210) being electrically coupled to the first electrical connector (640, 1204) of the first electronic component (of 630, 1202; [0276-0277]); and a second track (second of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) comprising second conductive ink positioned on the substantially flexible substrate (610, 1230; [0277]), and the second track (second 610, 1210) being electrically coupled to the first track (first 610, 1210; [0276-0277]; [0314-0318]).
While Hunt suggests the use of conductive inks, such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]), Hunt fails to explicitly disclose that the second conductive ink is different from the first conductive ink.
However, within the same field of endeavor of wearable devices that may detect and respond to signals from the user and that can communicate with the user and may perform other useful functions, Longinotti discloses compression garments having stretchable and conductive ink (abstract; Figs. 12A, 12B, 30), including a sensor sheet comprising electronic components and electrical connectors (col. 94, lines 21-32); a substantially flexible substrate supporting the plurality of electronic components (col. 14, lines 20-27; col. 16, lines 50-67); a first track comprising first conductive ink positioned on the substantially flexible substrate (col. 63, lines 4-16), electrically coupled to the first electrical connector of the first electronic component (col. 64, lines 21-67); and a second track comprising second conductive ink positioned on the substantially flexible substrate, electrically coupled to the first track, and the second conductive ink being different from the first conductive ink (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the second track disclosed by Hunt to include a second conductive ink different than the first conductive ink, similar to that disclosed by Longinotti, in order for the sensor sheet to employ interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
9. With regard to claim 2, while Hunt discloses a calibration conductive track (1240; Fig. 12) which has a different width than the first and second tracks (1210; [0317]) and suggests that track thickness/width has a direct effect on performance ([0344]); and Longinotti suggests conductive tracks having a width of between 2 mm and 10 mm (col. 93, lines 6-17), Hunt and Longinotti fail to explicitly disclose the first and second tracks have different widths.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the width of the second track disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti to have a different width than the first track, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, it is the position of the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art would tailor the first and second track thicknesses sufficient to perform the desired function through routine experimentation, in view of the suggestions provided by Hunt and Longinotti.
10. With regard to claim 3, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the sensor sheet of claim 1. Hunt further discloses that the second track (second of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) is electrically coupled to the first electronic component ([0009]; [0252]) via the first track (first of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; [0277]).
11. With regard to claim 4, Hunt further discloses a third track (third of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; Fig. 12; see L-shaped track interpreted as second and third track) of the first conductive ink coupled to the second track ([0276]), wherein the third track is electrically coupled to the first track (first of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) via the second track (second of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; [0277]).
12. With regard to claim 5, Hunt discloses that the plurality of electronic components (each module including at least one controller and one power source; [0009]; may also include a real-time clock, miscellaneous resistors, capacitors, connectors, charge controllers, and other power supplies; [0252]) further comprises a second electronic component (second of 630, 1202) including a second electrical connector (second of plurality of connectors, 640, 1204), and wherein the sensor sheet (600, 1200) further comprises a third track (third of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; Fig. 12; see L-shaped track interpreted as second and third track) of the first conductive ink coupled to the second electrical connector (second of plurality of connectors, 640, 1204) of the second electronic component (second of 630, 1202; [0276-0277]).
13. With regard to claim 6, Hunt discloses that the third track (third of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; Fig. 12; see L-shaped track interpreted as second and third track) is further coupled to the second track (third of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; [0276]).
14. With regard to claim 7, Hunt discloses that the first electronic component (first of 630, 1202) is electrically coupled to the second electronic component (second of 630, 1202) via the first track, the second track, and the third track (of 610, 1210; Fig. 12; [0276-0277]).
15. With regard to claim 8, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the sensor sheet of claim 1. Hunt further discloses a fourth track (fourth of 610, 1210) of the second conductive ink coupled to the third track (at least electrically; Figs. 6, 12; [0276-0277]).
While Longinotti suggests the use of different conductive ink tracks (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52), Hunt and Longinotti are silent in regard to the fourth track including the second conductive ink.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the fourth track disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti to be formed of the second conductive ink, similar to that disclosed by Longinotti, in order for the sensor sheet to employ interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
16. With regard to claim 9, Hunt discloses that at least one of the first conductive ink or the second conductive ink comprises silver ink ([0277]).
17. With regard to claim 10, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1. Hunt discloses that the conductive inks perform differently when stretched ([0007]; [0313]; [0318]). Additionally, Longinotti discloses that the first conductive ink and second conductive inks perform differently when stretched (col. 3, lines 25-36; col. 13, lines 30-42; col. 63, lines 4-16; col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 78, lines 12-48; col. 79, line 62 – col. 80, line 7; col. 92, lines 4-52).
18. With regard to claims 12 and 13, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
While Hunt and Longinotti fail to explicitly disclose that the first conductive ink and the second conductive ink have different impedance variabilities as a result of stretching; wherein the second conductive ink when stretched has a smaller impedance variability than that of the first conductive ink when stretched, Longinotti clearly suggests the use of different first and second conductive inks (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52); and Hunt clearly suggests the utilization of conductive inks such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of these different conductive ink materials suggested by Hunt have inherently different conductive properties, such as different impedance variability when stretched.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti so that the second conductive ink when stretched has a smaller impedance variability than that of the first conductive ink when stretched, similar to the different conductive ink suggestions disclosed by Hunt, in order to provide separate discernable interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
18. With regard to claims 14 and 15, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
While Hunt and Longinotti fail to explicitly disclose that the first conductive ink and the second conductive ink have different thermal conductivities; wherein a first conductive ink has a higher thermal conductivity than that of the second conductive ink, Longinotti clearly suggests the use of different first and second conductive inks (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52); and Hunt clearly suggests the utilization of conductive inks such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of these different conductive ink materials suggested by Hunt have inherently different conductive properties, such as different thermal conductivities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti so that the first conductive ink when stretched has a higher thermal conductivity than that of the second conductive ink, similar to the different conductive ink suggestions disclosed by Hunt, in order to provide separate discernable interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
19. With regard to claim 16, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
While Hunt and Longinotti fail to explicitly disclose that the first conductive ink forms a stronger bond with a soldering paste than a bond formed by the second conductive ink with the soldering paste, Longinotti clearly suggests the use of different first and second conductive inks (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52); and Hunt clearly suggests the utilization of conductive inks such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of these different conductive ink materials suggested by Hunt have inherently different conductive properties, such as different soldering bond strengths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti so that the first conductive ink forms a stronger bond with a soldering paste than a bond formed by the second conductive ink with the soldering paste, similar to the different conductive ink suggestions disclosed by Hunt, in order to provide separate discernable interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
20. With regard to claim 17, Hunt, as modified by Longinotti above, discloses that at least one of the first conductive ink or the second conductive ink comprises an electrical textile ([0222-0223]; [0225]; [0260]).
21. With regard to claim 18, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
Longinotti further suggests that the first conductive ink comprises a fiber (col. 45, line 63 – col. 46, line 27) inherently reducing an impedance variability due to stretching of the first conductive ink.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti so that the first conductive ink forms a stronger bond with a soldering paste than a bond formed by the second conductive ink with the soldering paste, similar to the different conductive ink suggestions disclosed by Hunt, in order to provide separate discernable interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
22. With regard to claim 19, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
Longinotti further discloses that at least a portion of the second track overlaps with at least a portion of the first track (Figs. 12A, 12B; col. 58, lines 24-41; col. 66, lines 20-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti top overlap, similar to that disclosed by Longinotti, in order to provide a 3-dimensional trace onto a 2-dimensional substrate, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 58, lines 21-28.
23. With regard to claim 20, Hunt as modified by Longinotti above discloses the first and second different conductive inks of the sensor sheet of claim 1.
Longinotti further discloses that the second track is electrically coupled to the first track using at least one of conductive glue or conductive tape (col. 77, lines 21-30; col. 78, lines 49-60; col. 94, lines 39-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti top overlap, similar to that disclosed by Longinotti, in order to provide higher conductive connections, while also securing the tracks to the fabric and maximizing comfort, as suggested by Longinotti in column 77, lines 21-30.
24. With regard to claim 21, Hunt discloses a sensor sheet for use with a wound monitoring and/or therapy apparatus (sensor enabled wound dressing, 600, 1200; Figs. 2A, 2B, 6, 12; abstract; [0005-0023]), the sensor sheet (600, 1200) comprising: at least one electronic component (one or more electronics module, 630, 1202) comprising a first electronic component (each module including at least one controller and one power source; [0009]; may also include a real-time clock, miscellaneous resistors, capacitors, connectors, charge controllers, and other power supplies; [0252]) including a first electrical connector (one of plurality of connectors, 640, 1204; connectors can be pins, leads, bumps, surface mounts (SMT), or the like) configured to electrically connect the first electronic component ([0276-0277]); a substantially flexible substrate (sheet or substrate, 610, 1230) including a first, wound-facing side, supporting the plurality of electronic components (630, 1202) and a second side opposite the first side (Figs. 6, 12; [0276-0277]); a track (first of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) of first conductive ink (“conductive copper, conductive ink (such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc.), or the like”) residing on the substantially flexible substrate (610, 1230), the first conductive ink inherently having a first impedance ([0227]); wherein the track of first conductive ink (first 610, 1210) is electrically coupled to the first electrical connector (640, 1204) of the first electronic component (of 630, 1202; [0276-0277]); and a track (second of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) second conductive ink residing on the substantially flexible substrate (610, 1230; [0277]), the second conductive ink inherently having an impedance, wherein the track of second conductive ink (second 610, 1210) is electrically coupled to the track of first conductive ink (first 610, 1210; [0276-0277]; [0314-0318]); and the second track of conductive ink (second of one or more tracks, 610, 1210) is electrically coupled to the first electronic component ([0009]; [0252]) via the first track of conductive ink (first of one or more tracks, 610, 1210; [0277]).
While Hunt suggests the use of conductive inks, such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]), Hunt fails to explicitly disclose that the second conductive ink is different from the first conductive ink.
However, within the same field of endeavor of wearable devices that may detect and respond to signals from the user and that can communicate with the user and may perform other useful functions, Longinotti discloses compression garments having stretchable and conductive ink (abstract; Figs. 12A, 12B, 30), including a sensor sheet comprising electronic components and electrical connectors (col. 94, lines 21-32); a substantially flexible substrate supporting the plurality of electronic components (col. 14, lines 20-27; col. 16, lines 50-67); a first track comprising first conductive ink positioned on the substantially flexible substrate (col. 63, lines 4-16), electrically coupled to the first electrical connector of the first electronic component (col. 64, lines 21-67); and a second track comprising second conductive ink positioned on the substantially flexible substrate, electrically coupled to the first track, and the second conductive ink being different from the first conductive ink (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the second track disclosed by Hunt to include a second conductive ink different than the first conductive ink, similar to that disclosed by Longinotti, in order for the sensor sheet to employ interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
Further, while Hunt and Longinotti fail to explicitly disclose that the first conductive ink and the second conductive ink have different impedances, Longinotti clearly suggests the use of different first and second conductive inks (col. 66, lines 20-31; col. 92, lines 4-52); and Hunt clearly suggests the utilization of conductive inks such as silver ink, silver/silver chloride ink, copper ink, graphite ink, carbon ink, dielectric ink, etc. ([0277]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that each of these different conductive ink materials suggested by Hunt have inherently different conductive properties, such as different impedance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have selected the first and second conductive inks disclosed by Hunt in view of Longinotti so that the second conductive ink has a different impedance than that of the first conductive ink, similar to the different conductive ink suggestions disclosed by Hunt, in order to provide separate discernable interactive capacitive touch points which allow for the use of combinations or patterns of activation to communicate or signal, with reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Longinotti in column 4, lines 41-62 and column 66, lines 20-31.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naiknaware (US PGPUB 2018/0266976) discloses a nanoparticle-based moisture sensor.
Bergman et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0270774) discloses an incontinence management system.
Rice et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0176675) discloses a device assessing cell electrical potential.
Brown (US 5,036,859) discloses a moisture detector and indicator.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571)272-7159. 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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights