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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed March, 26, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wheeler (US 2006/0047326).
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 1-3, 11-13, 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 13, 16 of copending Application No. 19/271,267 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are merely broader in scope than the reference application for the reasons identified in the previous Office action. The amended limitations to claims 1 and 11 are not significant enough to be non-obvious over the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7, 11-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 17, 20 of copending Application No. 19/270,963 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are merely broader in scope than the reference application for the reasons identified in the previous Office action. The amended limitations to claims 1, 6 and 11 and 16 are not significant enough to be non-obvious over the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing devices” in claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 16 with the functional language being “configured to receive the data…” and “adjust the one or more stimulation parameters…”. According to the specification, the structure for “computing devices” is selected from the group consisting of a smartphone, tablet and laptop ([0073] of the published application).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961), Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409).
Regarding claim 1, Wheeler discloses a system to tailor transcutaneous stimulation to reduce a user’s tremor ([0033]) by making real time or periodic adjustments to one or more stimulation parameters ([0050], [0058]), the system comprising: one or more effectors 40-42 (fig. 4) that are configured to be positioned on a skin surface of the user to non-invasively apply the transcutaneous stimulation to at least a median nerve of the user ([0052]) so as to reduce the user’s tremor ([0033]), one or more processors or computing devices 66 (fig. 6) configured to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters in real time or periodically based on processing of sensor data 69 ([0058]), wherein the one or more processors or computing devices comprise one or more processors or computing devices of at least one of a cloud-based server, a wearable device, or a data portal device (“Neuromodulator unit 45” [0056], “hand-held controller 64” [0058]).
Wheeler does not expressly disclose one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user and the one or more processors or computing devices configured to receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data using one or more machine learning algorithms. John teaches it is known in the art to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user (“tremor magnitude” [0116]) and to have one or more processors or computing devices configured to receive the data from the one or more sensors and adjust one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data ([0063]; “responsive stimulation is stimulation which is triggered in response to sensed data when analysis of the data results in detection of one or more abnormal medical events” [0095]; [0107]). Burdick et al. teaches it is known in the art in the delivery of neural stimulation to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data and applying a machine learning algorithm to a closed loop system where adjustments to neurostimulation are performed based on information received from the sensors ([0191-0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user and for the one or more processors or computing devices to receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data as taught by John in order to provide a closed loop system that can better adjust the stimulation according to patient response, and to further modify Wheeler to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the closed loop system as taught by Burdick et al. in order to more efficiently search for effective parameter combinations ([0196]).
Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more effectors are positioned on a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises a band, and wherein the band is configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user. Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user for positioning effectors S1-S4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to position the effectors on a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises a band configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user as taught by Wu et al. as using a band to position the electrodes over the nerves is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Wheeler discloses the one or more effectors comprise a plurality of electrodes 40-42 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Wheeler discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises at least one electrode 40 for contact with the user at a skin surface above the median nerve, and at least one electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above a radial nerve 41, and at least one electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above an ulnar nerve 42 (fig. 4; the claim does not require stimulation of the nerves, only that there is at least one electrode “for contact with the user at a skin surface above” the median nerve, the radial nerve and the ulnar nerve).
Regarding claim 4, Wheeler in view of John disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise motion sensors configured to measure motion of the user’s wrist ([0159]).
Regarding claim 5, Wheeler in view of Wu et al. disclose wherein the wearable device comprises the one or more sensors ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Wheeler does not disclose wherein the one or more processors or computing devices comprise one or more processors or computing devices of a cloud-based server, and the cloud-based server is configured to receive the data from a data portal device that is in wireless communication with the wearable device, and wherein the data portal device comprises a smart phone or a tablet computing device. Burdick et al. teaches one or more processors 12 local to a user may also interact with one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server 49 (“The computing device 12 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to provide one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to establish network communication between the local processor and other computing devices that may have remote memory storage that can be accessible by other users ([0215-0217]). Burdick et al. further teaches it is known in the art for a cloud-based server 157 to be configured to receive the data from a data portal device 152 that is in wireless communication (“The external control unit 150 may connected via a connection 154 (e.g., a USB connection, wireless connection, and the like) to an external computing device 152” [0099]) with a wearable device 150, and wherein the data portal device comprises a smart phone or tablet computing device (“tablet computing device” [0101], [0215], “other means of and communications devices for establishing a communications link between the computers may be used” [0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to include a data portal device as taught by Burdick et al. in order to provide a communications device capable of acting as an intermediary linking the wearable device to the cloud-based server for more effective transferring of data.
Regarding claim 7, Wheeler in view of Burdick et al. disclose wherein the data portal device is configured to perform analysis of the data ([0152]).
Regarding claim 8, Wheeler in view of John disclose wherein the one or more stimulation parameters are adjusted based on a type of the user’s tremor (“For example, if tremor size has increased above a certain level for a specified duration, then an increase in the stimulation voltage compared to what has been previously used may be suggested.” [0107]).
Regarding claim 15, Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more effectors and the one or more sensors are positioned on a wearable device configured to be worn on a wrist of the user, and wherein the wearable device further comprises one or more processors that comprise at least one of the one or more computing devices. Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user for positioning effectors S1-S4 and sensors E1-E4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]); and the wearable device further comprises one or more processors that comprise at least one of the one or more computing devices (“coupling unit 220 may include a controller for performing stimulus control and/or received signal processing functions” [0032], fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to position the one or more effectors and the one or more sensors on a wearable device configured to be worn on a wrist of the user wherein the wearable device further comprises one or more processors as taught by Wu et al. as using such a wearable device to position the effectors and sensors over the nerves with an associating processor for receiving signal processing functions is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Wheeler does not disclose wherein the one or more computing devices comprise one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server, and the cloud-based server is configured to receive the data from a data portal device that is in wireless communication with the wearable device, and wherein the data portal device comprises a smart phone or a tablet computing device. Burdick et al. teaches one or more processors 12 local to a user may also interact with one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server 49 (“The computing device 12 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to provide one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to establish network communication between the local processor and other computing devices that may have remote memory storage that can be accessible by other users ([0215-0217]). Burdick et al. further teaches it is known in the art for a cloud-based server 157 to be configured to receive the data from a data portal device 152 that is in wireless communication (“The external control unit 150 may connected via a connection 154 (e.g., a USB connection, wireless connection, and the like) to an external computing device 152” [0099]) with a wearable device 150, and wherein the data portal device comprises a smart phone or tablet computing device (“tablet computing device” [0101], [0215], “other means of and communications devices for establishing a communications link between the computers may be used” [0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to include a data portal device as taught by Burdick et al. in order to provide a communications device capable of acting as an intermediary linking the wearable device to the cloud-based server for more effective transferring of data.
Regarding claim 17, Wheeler in view of Burdick et al. disclose wherein the data portal device is configured to perform analysis of the data ([0152]).
Regarding claim 18, Wheeler in view of John discloses wherein the one or more stimulation parameters are adjusted based on a type of the user’s tremor (“For example, if tremor size has increased above a certain level for a specified duration, then an increase in the stimulation voltage compared to what has been previously used may be suggested.” [0107]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961), Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409) and further in view of Abraham-Fuchs et al. (US 2002/0120183).
Regarding claim 9, Wheeler in view of Burdick et al. disclose using data to improve (“learn”) the machine learning algorithm ([0191-0192], [0196-0198]) but does not expressly disclose the data is stored on the cloud-based server and pooled to enable the improvement. Abraham-Fuchs et al. teaches it is known in the art for data (“electronic patient record (EPR)” to be stored in a central data bank ([0006]) and pooled to improve machine learning algorithms (“self-learning algorithms”) thereby gradually and automatically improving the expert rule for evaluation ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to store the data in the could-based server and pool the data to a large number of data points to improve the machine learning algorithm as taught by Abraham-Fuchs et al. as it is a known technique for training machine learning algorithms of a neural network, and would be useful in gradually and automatically improving the algorithm with the provided data ([0024]).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961), Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409) and further in view of Werder et al. (US 2007/0255323).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Wheeler discloses electrical stimulation ([0052]) but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more effectors comprises at least one effector configured to provide at least one of a vibrotactile stimulation or an ultrasonic excitation. Werder et al. teaches application of vibrational stimulation is known into the art to be an equivalent to electrical stimulation of the skin for treatment of tremors (“Parkinson’s disease”) ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to substitute and try vibrational stimulation for electrical stimulation to the user as taught by Werder et al. as it is a known equivalent in the art and would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361).
Regarding claim 11, Wheeler discloses a system to tailor transcutaneous stimulation to reduce a user’s tremor ([0033]) by making real time or periodic adjustments to one or more stimulation parameters ([0050], [0058]), the system comprising: one or more effectors 40-42 (fig. 4) that are configured to be positioned on a skin surface of the user to non-invasively apply the transcutaneous stimulation to at least a median nerve of the user ([0052]) so as to reduce the user’s tremor ([0033]), one or more computing devices 66 (fig. 6) configured to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters in real time or periodically based on processing of sensor data 69 ([0058]), wherein the one or more computing devices comprise one or more processors or computing devices of at least one of a cloud-based server, a wearable device, or a data portal device (“Neuromodulator unit 45” [0056], “hand-held controller 64” [0058]).
Wheeler does not expressly disclose one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user and the one or more computing devices configured to receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data using one or more machine learning algorithms. John teaches it is known in the art to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user (“tremor magnitude” [0116]) and to have one or more processors or computing devices configured to receive the data from the one or more sensors and adjust one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data ([0063]; “responsive stimulation is stimulation which is triggered in response to sensed data when analysis of the data results in detection of one or more abnormal medical events” [0095]; [0107]). Burdick et al. teaches it is known in the art in the delivery of neural stimulation to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data and applying a machine learning algorithm to a closed loop system where adjustments to neurostimulation are performed based on information received from the sensors ([0191-0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to use one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user and for the one or more processors or computing devices to receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters based on processing of the data as taught by John in order to provide a closed loop system that can better adjust the stimulation according to patient response, and to further modify Wheeler to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the closed loop system as taught by Burdick et al. in order to more efficiently search for effective parameter combinations ([0196]).
Regarding claim 12, Wheeler discloses the one or more effectors comprise a plurality of electrodes 40-42 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Wheeler discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes comprises at least one electrode 40 for contact with the user at a skin surface above the median nerve, and at least one electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above a radial nerve 41, and at least one stimulating electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above an ulnar nerve 42 (fig. 4; the claim does not require stimulation of the nerves, only that there is at least one electrode “for contact with the user at a skin surface above” the median nerve, the radial nerve and the ulnar nerve). The limitation, “wherein the system is configured to provide transcutaneous stimulation for up to 24 hours in a day” is a matter of intended use, and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 14, Wheeler in view of John disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise motion sensors configured to measure motion of the user’s wrist ([0159]).
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796