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 1, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 1 and 10 recite “has a length and with”. Examiner believes the bold portion is a typographical error and is meant to recite “width”. To that end for clarity of the record Examiner interpreting “with” as “width”.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “wherein each arm includes a chest electrodes”, Examiner believes there is a typographical error. Examiner believes it should read each arm includes a chest electrode.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-13 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 12 recites “two compartments on either side of the casing” it’s unclear if this is reciting (1) there are two compartments on each on both sides of the casing; or (2) there are two compartments with one on each side of the casing. For the above reason the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite. The claim depending from this claim shares this issue and is also rejected.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20100174204 to Danteny (hereinafter Danteny).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Danteny discloses a mobile and compact cardiac monitoring device (abstract) comprising:
a casing having a front face and a rear face ([0088]-[0089], Figs. 2-3, 6), wherein the casing has a length and with that are greater than a thickness of the casing (Figs. 2-3, 6 see also [0093]);
two finger electrodes on the front face or edge of the casing (208, 209 Fig. 2, [0104]; Examiner notes that to the extent “finger” of “finger electrode” is an intended use the device recited by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use);
two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends of the casing ([0090]-[0091], [0093], Figs. 2-4), wherein each arm includes a chest electrodes ([0093]-[0095], Figs. 2-4; Examiner notes that to the extent “chest” of “chest electrode” is an intended use the device recited by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use) and wherein each arm is biased to open into a deployed configuration from an undeployed configuration by a spring ([0097]-[0100], Fig. 6), further wherein the arms are folded flush with the rear face of the casing in the undeployed configuration ([0090], [0100], Figs. 2-3, 6; folds flush with face 211) and extend at an angle to the rear face in the deployed configuration ([0090], [0095], [0100]-[0101], Figs. 2-3, 6); and
one or more locks holding each of the arms in the undeployed configuration so that releasing the one or more locks causes the arms to extend into the deployed configuration ([0100]-[0101]; magnet locks hold arms).
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses wherein each foldable arm has a recessed tapered portion at one end that accommodates one of the chest electrodes for acquiring signals from a patient's chest (201, 206 Figs. 2-4, [0093]; the arms taper with a recessed portion and the electrodes are on the tapered portion).
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses wherein the spring biasing each arm to open into the deployed configuration comprises a torsion spring, said spring having a first and second tang, the first tang being engaged with the arm and the second tang being engaged with the casing ([0097]-[0098], Fig. 6 see also [0099]-[0101]; shows the tank in the casing and the tang engaged with the arm).
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) 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danteny.
Regarding claim 7, an interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater because Applicant has not disclosed that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected mobile ECG device with the dimension of Danteny, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either the dimensions taught by Danteny or the claimed dimensions because both mobile ECG devices would perform the same function of measuring ECG equally well considering they both measure ECG and have relatively similar dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Danteny to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dan.
Regarding Claim 10, an interpretation of Danteny discloses mobile and compact cardiac monitoring device (abstract) comprising:
a casing having a front face and a rear face ([0088]-[0089], Figs. 2-3, 6), wherein the casing has a length and with that are greater than a thickness of the casing (Figs. 2-3, 6 see also [0093]);
two finger electrodes on the front face or edge of the casing (208, 209 Fig. 2, [0104]; Examiner notes that to the extent “finger” of “finger electrode” is an intended use the device recited by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use);
two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing ([0090]-[0091], [0093], Figs. 2-4), wherein each arm includes a chest electrodes ([0093]-[0095], Figs. 2-4) and wherein each arm is biased to open into a deployed configuration from an undeployed configuration by a spring ([0097]-[0100], Fig. 6), further wherein the arms are folded flush with the rear face of the casing in the undeployed configuration ([0090], [0100], Figs. 2-3, 6; folds flush with face 211) and extend at an angle to the rear face in the deployed configuration ([0090], [0095], [0100]-[0101], Figs. 2-3, 6); and
one or more locks holding each of the arms in the undeployed configuration so that releasing the one or more locks causes the arms to extend into the deployed configuration ([0100]-[0101]; magnet locks hold arms).
An interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater because Applicant has not disclosed that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected mobile ECG device with the dimension of Danteny, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either the dimensions taught by Danteny or the claimed dimensions because both mobile ECG devices would perform the same function of measuring ECG equally well considering they both measure ECG and have relatively similar dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Danteny to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dan.
Regarding Claim 11, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses wherein each foldable arm has a recessed tapered portion at one end that accommodates one of the chest electrodes for acquiring signals from a patient's chest (201, 206 Figs. 2-4, [0093]; the arms taper with a recessed portion and the electrodes are on the tapered portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 4, 6, 12-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Danteny or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Danteny in view of US 20220039726 to Vlaskalic et al. (hereinafter Vlaskalic).
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses a pair of compartments ([0100], Figs. 2-3, 6) wherein the one or more locks is configured to hold each of the arms within a compartment of the pair of compartments in the undeployed configuration ([0100]-[0101]; magnet locks hold arms).
If it is determined that Danteny does not disclose “compartments” then in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches compartments for to receive electrodes which are pivoted into a compartment when not in use ([0020], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include recesses/compartments disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes into a recess/compartment when not in use protects them from getting dirty or damaged ([0009]).
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses a pair of compartments each having an opening adapted to receive a portion of the foldable arms ([0100]-[0101], Figs. 2-3, 6).
If it is determined that Danteny does not disclose “compartments” then in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches compartments for to receive electrodes which are pivoted into a compartment when not in use ([0020], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include recesses/compartments disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes into a recess/compartment when not in use protects them from getting dirty or damaged ([0009]).
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses two compartments on either side of the casing and configured to hold the arms in the undeployed configuration ([0100]-[0101], Figs. 2-3, 6).
If it is determined that Danteny does not disclose “compartments” then in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches compartments to receive electrodes which are pivoted into a compartment when not in use ([0020], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include recesses/compartments disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes into a recess/compartment when not in use protects them from getting dirty or damaged ([0009]).
Regarding Claim 13, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses wherein each arm comprises a torsion spring having a first and second tang, the first tang being engaged with the arm and the second tang being engaged with the casing ([0097]-[0098], Fig. 6 see also [0099]-[0101]; shows the tank in the casing and the tang engaged with the arm).
Regarding Claim 17, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses a pair of compartments each having an opening adapted to receive a portion of the foldable arms ([0100]-[0101], Figs. 2-3, 6).
If it is determined that Danteny does not disclose “compartments” then in the alternative, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches compartments for to receive electrodes which are pivoted into a compartment when not in use ([0020], [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include recesses/compartments disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes into a recess/compartment when not in use protects them from getting dirty or damaged ([0009]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danteny in view of Vlaskalic.
Regarding claim 5, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses wherein the finger electrodes offset relative to a transverse centerline of the front face (208-209 Fig. 2, [0104]), and the arms being disposed adjacent to or at the shorter edges of the front face along a longitudinal centerline ([0090]-[0091], 212-213 Figs. 2-4).
an interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of the front face.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of a face ([0021]; finger electrodes are along an edge and indented into the casing along the edge of the first face, thus on the “longer edges”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include the electrodes on the edge indented as disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes in such a way allows for the application of the force applied by the fingers to ensures additional pressure on the electrodes contacting the chest forming a more stable connection ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses chest electrodes in a deployed configuration creating a space between them ([0093], [0101], Fig. 4, 6).
An interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the chest electrodes in a deployed configuration is greater than about 10 cm.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches wherein a distance between the chest electrodes in the deployed configuration is greater than about 10 cm
([0004], [0013] including “the distance between active chest electrodes is 100-120 mm”, [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include the chest electrodes distanced apart as disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes in such a way because provides the required distance for three leads in view of the curvature of the chest and location of the heart ([0004], [0013]). Additionally, combining the specific distance between chest electrodes as recited Vlaskalic with the chest electrodes on the ECG device as recited by Danteny is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of having electrodes at a particular distance.
Regarding claim 9, an interpretation of Danteny further discloses chest electrodes in a unfolded position creating an angle between them ([0093], Figs. 2-4, 6).
An interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein an angle between the arms in the deployed position is about 135 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches , wherein an angle between the arms in the deployed position is about 135 degrees ([0013], [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include the chest electrodes at angle to each other as disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes based on the angle in such a way because provides the required distance for three leads in view of the curvature of the chest and location of the heart ([0004], [0013]). Additionally, combining the specific angle between chest electrodes as recited Vlaskalic with the chest electrodes on the ECG device as recited by Danteny is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of having electrodes at a particular angle respective to each other.
Regarding Claim 15, an interpretation of Danteny discloses the finger electrodes on the front face or edge of the casing (208, 209 Fig. 2, [0104]; Examiner notes that to the extent “finger” of “finger electrode” is an intended use the device recited by the prior art is structurally capable of performing the intended use)an interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of the front face.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vlaskalic teaches wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of a face ([0021]; finger electrodes are along an edge and indented into the casing along the edge of the first face, thus on the “longer edges”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Danteny to include the electrodes on the edge indented as disclosed by Vlaskalic because the placement of electrodes in such a way allows for the application of the force applied by the fingers to ensures additional pressure on the electrodes contacting the chest forming a more stable connection ([0021]).
Regarding claim 16, an interpretation of Dantani further discloses wherein the finger electrodes offset relative to a transverse centerline of the front face (208-209 Fig. 2, [0104]), and the arms being disposed adjacent to or at the shorter edges of the front face along a longitudinal centerline ([0090]-[0091], 212-213 Figs. 2-4).
an interpretation of Dantani may not explicitly disclose wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of the front face.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Laskaris teaches wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of a face ([0021]; finger electrodes are along an edge and indented into the casing along the edge of the first face, thus on the “longer edges”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Dantani to include the electrodes on the edge indented as disclosed by Laskaris because the placement of electrodes in such a way allows for the application of the force applied by the fingers to ensures additional pressure on the electrodes contacting the chest forming a more stable connection ([0021]).
Regarding claim 18, an interpretation of Dantani further discloses chest electrodes in a deployed configuration creating a space between them ([0093], [0101], Fig. 4, 6).
An interpretation of Dantani may not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the chest electrodes in a deployed configuration is greater than about 10 cm.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Laskaris teaches wherein a distance between the chest electrodes in the deployed configuration is greater than about 10 cm
([0004], [0013] including “the distance between active chest electrodes is 100-120 mm”, [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Dantani to include the chest electrodes distanced apart as disclosed by Laskaris because the placement of electrodes in such a way because provides the required distance for three leads in view of the curvature of the chest and location of the heart ([0004], [0013]). Additionally, combining the specific distance between chest electrodes as recited Laskaris with the chest electrodes on the ECG device as recited by Dantani is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of having electrodes at a particular distance.
Regarding claim 19, an interpretation of Dantani further discloses chest electrodes in a unfolded position creating an angle between them ([0093], Figs. 2-4, 6).
An interpretation of Dantani may not explicitly disclose wherein an angle between the arms in the deployed position is about 135 degrees.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Laskaris teaches , wherein an angle between the arms in the deployed position is about 135 degrees ([0013], [0024]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Dantani to include the chest electrodes at angle to each other as disclosed by Laskaris because the placement of electrodes based on the angle in such a way because provides the required distance for three leads in view of the curvature of the chest and location of the heart ([0004], [0013]). Additionally, combining the specific angle between chest electrodes as recited Laskaris with the chest electrodes on the ECG device as recited by Dantani is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of having electrodes at a particular angle respective to each other.
Double Patenting
The no statutory 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 no statutory 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.
Claims 1-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 9 of ‘908 recites all of claim 1 of the current action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12207908 in view of Danteny.
Claim 9 of ‘908 discloses all of claim 1 of the current action except “wherein the casing has a length and with that are greater than a thickness of the casing”. Similarly, for claim 10 of the current action claim 9 of ‘908 discloses everything except “wherein the casing has a length and with that are greater than a thickness of the casing so that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater”.
However, Danteny discloses wherein the casing has a length and with that are greater than a thickness of the casing (Figs. 2-3, 6 see also [0093]) because it is merely combining the known sizing comparisons and integrating those sizing comparisons with the housing of the device of ‘908 claim 9 according to known methods to yield predictable results of having a device with certain dimensions. While Claim 9 of ‘908 of Danteny may not explicitly disclose that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater. interpretation of Danteny may not explicitly disclose wherein a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater because Applicant has not disclosed that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected mobile ECG device with the dimension of Danteny, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either the dimensions taught by Danteny or the claimed dimensions because both mobile ECG devices would perform the same function of measuring ECG equally well considering they both measure ECG and have relatively similar dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Danteny to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dan.
In view of the above discussion the dependent claims of claim 9 from ‘908 disclose the dependent claims of claims 1 and 10.
Alternatively, to using the secondary reference, with regards to the double patenting rejection of claim 10, claim 15 of ‘908 reads on claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowable over the art (with the exception of the double patenting rejection) based on the additional limitations regarding the plunger and their interaction with the compartment walls.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20100168593 (included in IDS dated 3/26/25) see abstract, fig. 7
US 20140081118 see Fig. 6, has “arms”/straps which include electrodes
US 6363274 (included in IDS dated 3/26/25) see fig. 3
US 20160296132 see Figs. 2A-C including little arms/pegs for the two electrodes on the back with finger electrodes on the front
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights