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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, dependent on claim 4, refers to “signal conductor sections” but the terminology lacks proper antecedent basis as “signal conductor sections” are only referred to in claim 6.
Claim 9, the terminology, “signal conductor” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 20041218199 to Frost et al., hereinafter referred to as document “D1”. It is noted the examiner is in agreement with the “WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY” with respect to what Frost et al. “D1” discloses. (See below)
Regarding claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
237
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: See D1 figure 11 (sensors arranged on the skin surface).
Regarding claim 10:
PNG
media_image2.png
106
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20041218199 to Frost et al. (hereinafter D1).
D1 lacks the specific teaching of a protective layer comprising a resin.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to cover materials, such as metal pipes or other, with a plastic resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cover the elements of the transport linkage with a plastic resin, in view of Official Notice, in order to provide a protective layer.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of EP1065530A1 (hereinafter referred to as document “D3”).
D1 lacks but D3 teaches:
Regarding claims 4-5: signal conductor into an element of the transport linkage. (See D3, figure 1 and claims 1 and 13)
Regarding claims 6-8: releasably connected signal conductor sections, electrically insulating conductor or light guide, and signal conductor sections formed by the elements of the transport linkages. (See D3, figure 1 and claims 1 and 13)
Regarding claim 9: the signal conductor being composed of signal
conductor sections characterized in that elements of the transport linkage are consecutively joined as the penetration depth of the probe increases, and signal conductor sections are also connected to one another in the process (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 to have signal conductor into an element of the transport linkage, releasably connected signal conductor sections, electrically insulating conductor or light guide, signal conductor sections formed by the elements of the transport linkages, and that elements of the transport linkage are consecutively joined as the penetration depth of the probe increases and signal conductor sections are also connected to one another in the process, in view of D3, in order to allow for transmission of data (See D3, claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant is also directed to WO2019106635A1, cited in the International Search Report as a X reference, and described in the “WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY” as pertinent art regarding novelty and/or inventive step for all claims in this subject application. It is noted the examiner agrees with the findings of the search report and the written opinion and therefore suggests applicant review the written opinion thoroughly if/when amendments or a response to this Office action is formulated/submitted.
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 and not necessarily relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is advised the applicant review the prior art cited if/when amendments are made to attempt to overcome the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Florian Zeender whose telephone number is (571)272-6790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-5:30pm EST.
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.
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.
Florian Zeender
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights