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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalitie:
In the opening paragraph, the priority information should be listed.
In the brief description, only figures 1 and 2 are set forth (the application has figures 1, 2A-C, and 3).
In the detailed description, only figures 1 and 2 are described (the application has figures 1, 2A-C, and 3).
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, instances of “the skin”, “the radio frequency current”, “the plasma discharge”, “the plasma discharge current”, “the amplified signal”, “the drive waveform”, “the frequency converter outputs”, “the different FFT results”, “the user”, “the correct array placement”, “the body”, and “the detection of medical conditions” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 11 and 13, ‘the’ should be placed before ‘narrow’ and ‘spectrum’, respectively, as the terms have previously been introduced.
In claim 1, line 16, it is unclear how the ‘medical conditions’ relate to the ‘vital fields’ introduced in the preamble.
In claim 3, line 1, “the amplified signal” lacks antecedence.
In claim 4, instances of ‘small’, ‘very long’, and ‘large’ render the claim unclear as they are relative terms.
In claim 6, “the coaxial cable” lacks antecedence.
In claim 7, “the drive control” and “the high voltage transformer” lacks antecedence.
In claim 8, “Bluetooth” is indefinite as it refers to a trade name (see MPEP 2173.05(u)).
In claim 9, “the plasma control” lacks antecedence.
In claim 10, “the plasma” lacks antecedence.
In claim 11, “the plasma modulation frequency” lacks antecedence.
In claim 12, “the plasma” and “the controller” lacks antecedence.
In claim 13, “the measured reverse power” and “the user” lack antecedence.
In claim 14, “the body” and “the modulation frequency” lack antecedence.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert ‘302 (US Pub 2013/0253302) in view of Kim et al (US 5,909,086) and Eckert ‘196 (US Pub 2009/0292196).
Re claims 1, 10-14: Eckert ‘302 discloses a device for detecting and analyzing vital fields, the device comprising:
a dielectric barrier discharge array fabricated on a thin substrate with low dielectric loss [0027; see the dielectric barrier 66 on the thin film substrate 67];
an air permeable sheet for electrical insulation from the skin [Fig 1, 0017; see the dielectric insulator];
circuitry for amplification and narrow-band spectrum analysis of the plasma discharge current [Fig 1, 0016, 0021, 0038; see the control circuitry 11 and signal processing circuitry 13 for frequency conversion and Fourier analysis] wherein:
a multiplicity of frequency converters are used to reduce the complexity of narrow-band spectrum analysis [0016, 0021; see the control circuitry 11 for use in a frequency converter wherein a first mixed signal is processed and undergoes filtration, frequency conversion, and Fourier transformation to extract the desired frequency data];
spectrum analysis is done by Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of the frequency converter outputs [0021, 0037; see the Fourier transformation to extract a desired signal and see the Fourier transform computer 48];
the different FFT results are compared and analyzed to aid the user with the correct array placement on the body, and the detection of medical conditions [0023, 0037; wherein the spectral data is formatted and displayed and compared to records in a reference database to determine if it matches known vital fields].
Eckert ‘302 discloses all features including that radio signals in the VHF and UHF ranges are detected for adjusting the modulation frequency [0034; see the bias modulation], but does not disclose a transformer for generating sufficient AC voltage to cause air breakdown in the array and a signal transformer and bypass capacitor for isolating the radio frequency current from the plasma discharge. Eckert ‘302 also does not disclose modulating the plasma at a plasma modulation frequency or measuring reverse power. However, Kim teaches of a transformer for generating sufficient AC voltage to cause air breakdown in the array and a signal transformer and bypass capacitor for isolating the radio frequency current from the plasma discharge (col 3, lines 42-50; see the transformer 8 as well as signal transformer 4 and bypass capacitor 17). Further, Kim teaches of modulating the plasma by turning it on and off at a frequency and duty cycle to address a physical condition and using reverse power to find an optimum modulation frequency (col 3, lines 51-56; see the switching on and off of the control elements which provides for reverse power for finding an optimum modulation frequency). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Eckert ‘302, to incorporate the transformers and capacitor and to modulate plasma frequency, in order to facilitate generation of an isolated signal of plasma discharge.
Eckert ‘302 and Kim disclose all features except that the amplified signal from the plasma discharge current is gated to include only signal from the part of the drive waveform where plasma discharge predominantly occurs. However, Eckert ‘196 teaches the amplified signal from the plasma discharge current is gated to include only signal from the part of the drive waveform where plasma discharge predominantly occurs [0039; see the ASM 26 that is a gate]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Eckert ‘302 and Kim, to incorporate the gate as taught by Eckert ‘196, in order to generate a control signal of desired frequency and pulse length.
Re claims 2, 3: Eckert ‘302 discloses the frequency converters are implemented as analog circuitry, wherein the amplified signal is digitized by a converter and the frequency converters are down converters and decimators [0035; see ADC 47 and frequency converter 50 of signal processing circuitry 13 and see the down conversion].
Re claim 4: Eckert ‘302 discloses a small decimation digital down converter, or no down converter, is combined with a very long FFT to search for signals over a large range [0021, 0035, 0037; see the down conversion and see the FFT at the relative ranges].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196, as applied to claims 1 and 4, in view of Hancock (US Pub 2010/0296977).
Re claims 5, 6: Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196 disclose all features except that the array is connected to the signal transformer through a length of coaxial cable or a series resistor is added to reduce signal reflections on the coaxial cable. However, Hancock teaches an array that is connected to the signal transformer through a length of coaxial cable and a series resistor is added to reduce signal reflections on the coaxial cable [0062, 0206; see the coaxial cable and see the resistors 133, 138, 139]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196, as taught by Hancock, in order to efficiently generate a signal for analyzing the vital field.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ostadrahimi et al (US Pub 2016/0317061).
Re claims 7-9: Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196 disclose all features except for a drive control for the high voltage transformer is integrated into an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), along with the narrow-band spectrum analysis circuitry and an associated Central Processing Unit (CPU) for real-time analysis, wherein the ASIC consists of narrow-band spectrum analysis circuitry and an associated Central Processing Unit (CPU) for real-time analysis, and the plasma control is performed by a separate micro-controller. However, Ostadrahimi teaches of a drive control for the high voltage transformer is integrated into an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), along with the narrow-band spectrum analysis circuitry and an associated Central Processing Unit (CPU) for real-time analysis, wherein the ASIC consists of narrow-band spectrum analysis circuitry and an associated Central Processing Unit (CPU) for real-time analysis, and the plasma control is performed by a separate micro-controller [0096; see the microprocessors includes ASICs used to implement to system components]. It would have been obvious to modify Eckert ‘302/Kim/Eckert ‘196, to integrate the components into ASICs as taught by Ostadrahimi, in order to facilitate implementation of the components within the same device. Further, Examiner takes Official Notice that Bluetooth is a common means for connection to a smart phone.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,533. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘533 features a device for detecting and analyzing vital fields of an organism including a dielectric barrier discharge array, an air permeable sheet, a transformer, a signal transformer and bypass capacitor, circuitry for amplification and narrow band spectrum analysis, a plurality of frequency converters, wherein the spectrum analysis is done by FFT with outputs compared and analyzed to aid a user with correct placement of the array on the organism. While the instant claims are different such as not including that the plasma discharge current is gated ‘based on a driving waveform’, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to conclude that the instant claims are an obvious variant.
Conclusion
This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/609,333. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on 571-272-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights