The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to for the following reason:
The following formal matter is noted: Applicant has included duplicate figure descriptions in the specification.Applicant is not required to correct the above-noted formal matters but may wish to do so to place the application in better form.
Therefore, the descriptions reading “Fig. 1.1 is a perspective view of an embodiment of a wearable biosignal measuring device showing the claimed design; fig. 1.2 is a front view thereof; fig. 1.3 is a back view thereof; fig. 1.4 is a top view thereof; fig. 1.5 is a bottom view thereof; fig. 1.6 is a left side view thereof and fig. 1.7 is a right side view thereof;” should be cancelled.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Some features shown in the figures (see the illustration below) are indefinite and non-enabled because there is no supporting disclosure in the instant application to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the depth and three-dimensional appearance of the features and surfaces shown therein without resorting to conjecture.
In the illustration following, the feature within the white rectangle is indefinite and non-enabled. Same area is indefinite and non-enabled in Reproduction 1.7.
See next page.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To overcome this rejection applicants may remove the indefinite and non-enabled features from the claim. Since the images are photographs/3D model, the indefinite and non-enabled features cannot be converted to broken lines. In this case the examiner suggests de-emphasizing the indefinite and non-enabled area similar to what is described in the example below. Illustration below is an example how to amend Reproduction 1.6. In the illustration below the broken line forms no part of the claimed invention, but serves as an unclaimed portion. More specifically, in the reproductions the area is shown in de-emphasized and half-tone portion so as to illustrate environmental structure or portion of the article that are removed from the claim. This portion forms no part of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets may be submitted in reply to the office action.
It is recommended to use images saved in a lossless format (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). It is strongly recommended that the PDF creation software does not downsample images during the PDF creation process, as this could degrade the quality of the image. For color and grayscale images, it is recommended that no compression be used; CCITT Group IV compression is recommended for bi-tonal images.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.”
Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b).
The references not relied upon are cited as cumulative prior art.
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omeed Agilee, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7681. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Stout can be reached on (408)918-7558. 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.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at: omeed.agilee@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
Mail: Commissioner For Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Mailing should be done sufficiently in advance to ensure the USPTO receipt prior to reply period expiration
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300) (Do Not Fax Formal Drawings)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
For additional information regarding responding to office actions see:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Note that correspondence received will appear in the Patent Center, which may be viewed by the applicant at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
/OMEED AGILEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924