<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Open Sans";
panose-1:2 11 6 6 3 5 4 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmailsignatureprefix
{mso-style-name:gmail_signature_prefix;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>The issue is that claim 4 was materially amended after non-final rejection, and I still have no idea what aspect of either reference is being treated as disclosing the feature of the claims \u201cwherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition\u201d. The issue on Petition is in fact presence of a prima facie rejection, but there is a parallel argument on the merits that claim 4 is patentable\u2014but, the Examiner is somehow precluded by USPTO policy from reviewing my submission. Claim 4 was amended as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>4. (Currently Amended) The biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological [[data]] <u>condition</u> is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity<u>,</u> [[;]] a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit<u>, and wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>The non-final rejection reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> Regarding claim 4, Khachaturian discloses the biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological data is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity; a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit (In one aspect, a device measures temperature, heart rate at rest, heart rate variability, respiration, SpO2, blood flow, blood pressure, total hemoglobin (SpHb), PVi, methemoglobin (SpMet), acoustic respiration rate (RRa), carboxyhemoglobin (SpCO), oxygen reserve index (ORi), oxygen content (SpOC) and/or EEG of a human(col. 1, lines 28-33)).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>The final rejection reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> Regarding claim 4, Khachaturian <u>in view of Sharf teaches</u> the biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological condition is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity, a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit<u>, and wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition</u> (In one aspect, a device measures temperature, heart rate at rest, heart rate variability, respiration, SpO2, blood flow, blood pressure, total hemoglobin (SpHb), PVi, methemoglobin (SpMet), acoustic respiration rate (RRa), carboxyhemoglobin (SpCO), oxygen reserve index (ORi), oxygen content (SpOC) and/or EEG of a human (col. 1, lines 28-33)).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>Therefore, the Examiner simply parroted the language of the claim and named the secondary reference to the rejection, without altering the analysis or otherwise apprising me of which reference allegedly contains the \u201csame physiological condition\u201d language (my position on the merits is that neither does). It is certainly not at col. 1, lines 28-33 of Khachaturian:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=331 height=88 style='width:3.4479in;height:.9166in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01DB6DC8.D2444D60"><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> The advisory action included no supplemental sheet, and only boxes 1(b), 3(c), 7 (will not be entered), and 12 (\u201cThe amendments do not overcome the current prior art rejection\u201d) are checked, with no explanation whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>Very truly yours,</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>Steven M. Hoffberg<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>Hoffberg & Associates<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>29 Buckout Road<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>West Harrison, NY 10604<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>(914) 949-2300 tel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'>(845) 625-2547 fax<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 2025 1:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br><b>Cc:</b> steve@hoffberglaw.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Petition to Withdraw Finality<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Without deep thought and research, you might have a plausible case if you're willing to go to federal Court. (But I'd need to research it much deeper to know whether you have a strong case or a weak one.) The PTO's use of strategic delay in deciding petitions is truly beyond the pale, and you might well have a plausible claim.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The PTO's position is that <i>In re Jung </i>abs<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>olves the PTO of the obligation of 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to give you a useful explanation and <i>bona fide</i> response to your traverse. Contrast </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/555" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/555</a> with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1519848467837385132" target="_blank">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1519848467837385132</a> (Jung is particularly galling -- while the attorneys were working on the brief, I told them that 35 U.S.C. § 132 wouldn't get them where they needed to go, look at <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>§ 555</span> instead. They went with § 132. And lost. Oh well.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Theoretically, you could request a § 1.136(b) extension. You have arguably "prosecuted the application" in a statutory sense, but how likely do you think it is that the PTO will buy that? A court maybe (I don't know how that one would come out). But the PTO only over dead bodies.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the real world, where bullying goes unpunished because it generates revenue for the PTO and the PTO knows that court review will cost you six figures, the practical reality is that you're stuck. Appeal.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:24<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>\u202f</span>PM steve--- via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Dear Group:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I ask your advice, both consensus and obscure, regarding action based on the below. I am tending toward a Notice of Appeal, preappeal conference request, and usurious extension of time. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The subject case had a Final office action issued 7/26/2024. On 9/26/2024, I filed both an after final response and a petition to withdraw finality. An advisory action was issued 10/1/2024, and a Petition Decision was mail 10/23/2024. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The petition was filed because a dependent claim was amended after non-final rejection, and the Examiner in the final rejection did not actually consider the effect of the amendment. This became critical when that same dependent claim was sought to be added to the independent claim.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>A Request for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition was filed 10/24/2024. In this request for rehearing, a key sentence was \u201cWhile the issues of the claim admittedly changed, and the Examiner withdrew the prior rejections of claims 1-20, the final rejection did not, other than parroting the claim language, actually consider and analyze the differences in claim 4 before and after the amendment.\u201d The conclusion states:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'>Given that the language of the rejection explicitly fails to support the rejection, it is disingenuous for the Director to state \u201cAs detailed above, the limitation of claim 4 reciting \u2018wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition\u2019 was <b><i>discussed</i></b> by the examiner as being taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in the second paragraph on page 5.\u201d While the issue may have been nominally \u201cdiscussed\u201d, that is not the threshold required to sustain a final rejection according to 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) (\u201c\u2026\u201d) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (\u201c\u2026\u201d).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The request for rehearing was routed to the Office of Petitions, and based on a discussion, has not even been docketed to a petitions examiner, with the statutory deadline looming this week. There is thus no possibility that the petition will be decided before expiration of the statutory period. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Meanwhile, since filing of the request for reconsideration, the Examiner tells me that she is prohibited from acting on my outstanding second submission after final rejection with a timely filed AFCP 2.0 request, due to a policy that stays all other USPTO action until the petition is decided.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Suggestions for action?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Very truly yours,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Steven M. Hoffberg</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hoffberg & Associates</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>29 Buckout Road</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>West Harrison, NY 10604</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>(914) 949-2300 tel</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>(845) 625-2547 fax</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/" target="_blank"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>Patentpractice mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><span class=gmailsignatureprefix>-- </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#667FA0'><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style='color:#667FA0;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=73 height=92 style='width:.7604in;height:.9583in' id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"></span><span style='color:#667FA0;text-decoration:none'> <br></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;text-align:start'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#606E9A'>David Boundy </span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'>| Partner <span style='background:white'>| </span>Potomac Law Group, PLLC</span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323130'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in;text-align:start'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'>P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459</span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323130'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'>Tel (646) 472-9737 </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:gray'>|</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'> Fax: (202) 318-7707</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0C64C0'><a href="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com" target="_blank" title="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com"><span style='color:#FE46A5'>dboundy@potomaclaw.com</span></a></span></u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0C64C0'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'>| <u><a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com" target="_blank" title="http://www.potomaclaw.com/"><span style='color:#0C64C0'>www.potomaclaw.com</span></a></u></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#7C869A'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style='color:windowtext'><br></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style='color:windowtext'>Click here to add me to your contacts.</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>