Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-23 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites in line 15 “from the top surface of the module housing”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “top surface of the module housing” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. The claim only defines a top surface of an electronic module, but it does not define a module housing comprising a top surface. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite.
Also, the claim recites in line 20 “the recessed portion of the first leg of the module housing”. The claim previously defines a first leg of an electronic module recessed from the top surface of the module housing. The claim does not define that only a portion of the leg is recessed and that the leg belongs to the module housing. Therefore, the limitation of line 20 lack of antecedent basis, and the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, the claims recites in line 22 “the recessed portion of the second leg of the module housing”. The claim defines a second leg of an electronic module comprising a recessed portion. The claim does not define that the second leg belong to the module housing. Therefore, the limitation of line 22 lack of antecedent basis, and the claim is indefinite.
The examiner has interpreted line 12-23 of the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
the electronic module comprising:
a top surface;
a first leg having a portion recessed from the top surface of the electronic module; and
a second leg spaced from the first leg, wherein a portion of the second leg is recessed from the top surface of the electronic module;
wherein the electronic module and the dock are configured such that when connected to one another:
the recessed portion of the first leg of the electronic module is arranged underneath the first overhanging portion of the dock housing; and
the recessed portion of the second leg of the electronic module is arranged underneath the second overhanging portion of the dock housing.
In regards to claim(s) 22-23, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are allowed.
In regards to claim 1, the claim is allowed for the reasons provided in the office action dated December 19, 2025.
In regards to claims 2-4, the claims are allowed due to their dependency on claim 1.
In regards to claim 5, the claim is allowed for the reasons provided in the office action dated December 19, 2025.
In regards to claims 6-12, the claims are allowed due to their dependency on claim 5.
Claim(s) 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 21, Muuranto et al. (US-2016/0183836) in view of teaches a system for monitoring one or more physiological parameters of a subject [fig. 5]. Muuranto teaches that the system comprises a dock comprising a dock housing [fig. 2 element elevated portion of element 47]. Muuranto teaches that the dock comprises a physiological sensor connected to the dock [fig. 2 element 49, fig. 5 element 82, par. 0015 L. 4-5, par. 0037 L. 2-5]. Muuranto further teaches that the system comprises an electronic module configured to removably connect to the dock, the electronic module comprising a module housing [fig. 2 element 3, fig. 5 element 3, par. 0015 L. 12-21].
Brister et al. (US-7,946,984) teaches a dock comprising a first end and an electronic module connected to the dock [fig. 12C element 16 (electronic module) and 24 (first end of the dock)]. Brister teaches that the dock comprises an overhanging portion arranged at the first end, and the electronic module comprises a leg arranged at the first end of the module housing [fig. 12C].
However, the cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: the electronic module comprising: a top surface; a first leg having a portion recessed from the top surface of the electronic module; and a second leg spaced from the first leg, wherein a portion of the second leg is recessed from the top surface of the electronic module; wherein the electronic module and the dock are configured such that when connected to one another: the recessed portion of the first leg of the electronic module is arranged underneath the first overhanging portion of the dock housing; and the recessed portion of the second leg of the electronic module is arranged underneath the second overhanging portion of the dock housing.
In regards to claims 22-23, the claims are allowed due to their dependency on claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights