UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/891,443
`
`09/27/2010
`
`Michael Tasler
`
`0757- 1 13 189
`
`1408
`
`07/22/2011
`
`24628
`7590
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
`120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
`22ND FLOOR
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`LEE, CHUN KUAN
`
`2181
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`07/22/201 1
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev 04/00
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`1
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`1
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`12/891,443
`
`Examiner
`Chun—Kuan Lee
`
`TASLER, MICHAEL
`
`A“ Unit
`2181
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE § MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IXl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07 June 2011.
`
`2a)I:I This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IXl This action is non—final.
`
`3)I:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)IZl Claim(s) 2—_.3’6 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above claim(s) 14 1723 25 26 28 29 33 and 34 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)|Z| The drawing(s) filed on 27 September 2010 is/are: a)IX| accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)|Z| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)lXI All
`
`b)I:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _.
`
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`1) IX] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) El Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) IX] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 03/17/2011 & 04/12/2011.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) E Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper N°(5)/Mail DaT9- 3 -
`5) I:I Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) D Other:
`.
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20110718
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`2
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`2
`
`

`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`12/891,443
`_
`Examiner
`
`TASLER, MICHAEL
`_
`Art Unlt
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`Chun—Kuan Lee
`
`2181
`
`All Participants:
`
`Status of Application:
`
`(1 ) A/ford Kindred (SPE1.
`
`(3) James Sheer (Reg. # 29, 434).
`
`(4) Sidney Katz .
`
`(2) Chun—Kuan Lee (Examiner).
`
`Date of Interview: 12 July 2011
`
`Time:
`
`Type of Interview:
`IX! Telephonic
`I] Video Conference
`I] Personal (Copy given to: |:I Applicant
`
`I:l Applicant’s representative)
`
`I] Yes
`Exhibit Shown or Demonstrated:
`If Yes, provide a brief description:
`
`IZI No
`
`Part I.
`
`Rejection(s) discussed:
`N/A
`
`Claims discussed:
`N/A
`
`Prior art documents discussed:
`N/A
`
`Part II.
`
`SUBSTANCE OF INTERVIEW DESCRIBING THE GENERAL NATURE OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED:
`Please see Continuation Sheet below.
`
`Part III.
`
`I:|
`
`I:|
`
`It is not necessary for applicant to provide a separate record of the substance of the interview, since the interview
`directly resulted in the allowance of the application. The examiner will provide a written summary of the substance
`of the interview in the Notice of Allowability.
`It is not necessary for applicant to provide a separate record of the substance of the interview, since the interview
`did not result in resolution of all issues. A brief summary by the examiner appears in Part II above.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-413B (04-03)
`
`Examiner Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20110718
`
`(Applicant/App1icant’s Representative Signature — if appropriate)
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`3
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`3
`
`

`
`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-413B)
`
`Application No.
`
`The interview mainly focused on getting a clear understand of applicant's claimed invention, wherein the examiner
`requested the applicant to clarify how app|icant’s inventive concept should be characterized, as app|icant’s indicated in
`app|icant’s response, dated 06/07/2011, that the applicant’s disagree with the examiner’s re—charaCterization of
`app|icant’s claimed invention, and this interview was conducted at the same time as application 11/467,092, wherein
`during the interview for application 11/467,092, applicant indicated the following:
`Applicant indicated that the inventive concept for the instant application is the claims, and concede that the
`following is how the invention concept is functioning:
`Single analog sensing device with multiple parallel channels for acquiring analog data through the multiple parallel
`channels, wherein the single analog sensing device is connected to a digital device, such as a host, and the digital
`device (host) recognizing the connected single analog sensing device as a digital device, such as a hard drive (e.g.
`digital storage device) or printer; and when the single analog sensing device is connected to the digital device (host)
`for transferring the acquired analog data to the digital device (host), the digital device (host) use a corresponding digital
`device driver, such as hard drive driver, for communicating with the single analog sensing device, as the digital device
`(host) thinks that the connected single analog sensing device is the hard drive (digital device).
`Additionally, because the utilization of digital device driver (hard drive driver) by the host (digital device), end user
`loading of any software onto the computer at any time and end user interaction with the computer to set up a file
`system is not required, as the host (digital device) thinks that the connected single analog sensing device is the hard
`drive (digital device), and the hard drive driver (digital device driver) is part of the host, that is the host already have the
`needed digital device driver (hard disk driver).
`The examiner then inquired the applicant, base on the applicant’s best knowledge, if there is anything out there that
`has an analog device with multiple parallel channels conventionally? And applicant responded that, at the time when
`this application was filed, applicant thinks multi-channel analog device exists.
`
`The examiner then inquired how is the instant application differ from application 11/467,092; and applicant indicated
`that the claims for the instant application are broader as the independent claims for the instant application do not
`require the multiple parallel channels.
`The examiner then inquired how is the functionality for the instant application differs from the application
`11/467,092; and applicant indicated that the instant application is basically the same concept as the application
`11/467,092.
`The examiner then inquired whether the claimed feature regarding one parameter indicative of the class of devices
`of the analog data acquisition device to be send to the computer corresponds to the functionality for the host to
`recognize the connected analog device as a hard drive; and applicant responded that the claimed feature is part of the
`recognition process of the analog device as the hard drive.
`The informing of such file transfer characteristics would not necessarily be required for the analog sensing device to
`do the functioning of what the applicant has been describing. Applicant also indicated that the analog sensing device
`would not require to do that and that this is an extra limitation that is not necessarily needed; and if the applicant took
`this claimed limitation out of the independent claim, the applicant would still have a perfectly good independent claim.
`Applicant also indicated that the analog data acquisition device communicates with the host in ‘‘real time” and
`provided the following citations in app|icant’s Specification for support:
`Paragraph [0025] on page 10;
`Paragraph [0027] on page 11; and
`Paragraph [0038] on page 15 (e.g. real time FFT),
`wherein applicant indicated that the real time application is optional and not a requirement for implementing the
`inventive concept for the instant application
`
`Agreement was reached with regard to the inventive concept for the instant application, and no agreement was
`reached with regard to the allowability of the claims.
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`4
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
`
`I. INTERVIEW SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`The interview mainly focused on getting a clear understand of applicant's
`
`claimed invention, wherein the examiner requested the applicant to clarify how
`
`applicant’s inventive concept should be characterized, as applicant’s indicated in
`
`applicant’s response, dated 06/07/2011, that the applicant’s disagree with the
`
`eXaminer’s re—characterization of applicant’s claimed invention, and this interview
`
`was conducted at the same time as application 11/467,092, wherein during the
`
`interview for application 11/467,092, applicant indicated the following:
`
`Applicant indicated that the inventive concept for the instant application is
`
`the claims, and concede that the following is how the invention concept is
`
`functioning:
`
`Single analog sensing device with multiple parallel channels for acquiring
`
`analog data through the multiple parallel channels, wherein the single analog
`
`sensing device is connected to a digital device, such as a host, and the digital
`
`device (host) recognizing the connected single analog sensing device as a digital
`
`device, such as a hard drive (e.g. digital storage device) or printer; and when the
`
`single analog sensing device is connected to the digital device (host) for
`
`transferring the acquired analog data to the digital device (host), the digital
`
`device (host) use a corresponding digital device driver, such as hard drive driver,
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`5
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`for communicating with the single analog sensing device, as the digital device
`
`(host) thinks that the connected single analog sensing device is the hard drive
`
`(digital device).
`
`Additionally, because the utilization of digital device driver (hard drive
`
`driver) by the host (digital device), end user loading of any software onto the
`
`computer at any time and end user interaction with the computer to set up a file
`
`system is not required, as the host (digital device) thinks that the connected
`
`single analog sensing device is the hard drive (digital device), and the hard drive
`
`driver (digital device driver) is part of the host, that is the host already have the
`
`needed digital device driver (hard disk driver).
`
`The examiner then inquired the applicant, base on the applicant’s best
`
`knowledge, if there is anything out there that has an analog device with multiple
`
`parallel channels conventionally? And applicant responded that, at the time when
`
`this application was filed, applicant thinks multi—channel analog device exists.
`
`The examiner then inquired how is the instant application differ from
`
`application 11/467,092; and applicant indicated that the claims for the instant
`
`application are broader as the independent claims for the instant application do
`
`not require the multiple parallel channels.
`
`The examiner then inquired how is the functionality for the instant
`
`application differs from the application 11/467,092; and applicant indicated that
`
`the instant application is basically the same concept as the application
`
`11/467,092.
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`6
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`The examiner then inquired whether the claimed feature regarding one
`
`parameter indicative of the class of devices of the analog data acquisition device
`
`to be send to the computer corresponds to the functionality for the host to
`
`recognize the connected analog device as a hard drive; and applicant responded
`
`that the claimed feature is part of the recognition process of the analog device as
`
`the hard drive.
`
`The informing of such file transfer characteristics would not necessarily be
`
`required for the analog sensing device to do the functioning of what the applicant
`
`has been describing. Applicant also indicated that the analog sensing device
`
`would not require to do that and that this is an extra limitation that is not
`
`necessarily needed; and if the applicant took this claimed limitation out of the
`
`independent claim, the applicant would still have a perfectly good independent
`
`claim.
`
`Applicant also indicated that the analog data acquisition device
`
`communicates with the host in “real time” and provided the following citations in
`
`applicant’s Specification for support:
`
`Paragraph [0025] on page 10;
`
`Paragraph [0027] on page 11; and
`
`Paragraph [0038] on page 15 (e.g. real time FFT),
`
`wherein applicant indicated that the real time application is optional and
`
`not a requirement for implementing the inventive concept for the instant
`
`application
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`7
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`I. ELECTION / RESTRICTION
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's election with traverse of Specie l: claims 2-13, 15-16,
`
`18-22, 24, 27, 30-32, and 35-36 in the reply filed on 06/07/201 1 is acknowledged.
`
`The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species ll-IV are all similarly drawn to the
`
`analog data acquisition interface device, wherein claim 14 (Specie II), which is
`
`dependent on claim 2, is directed to the analog data acquisition device of claim 2
`
`and merely adds the requirement that the analog source from which data is
`
`acquired comprises a multimeter; thus, claim 14 is not directed to a multimeter,
`
`but to the analog data acquisition interface device where the analog source
`
`comprises a multimeter; similarly, claims 17 and 23 (Species III) are directed to
`
`the data acquisition device of claim 2 where the analog source is further limited
`
`to require that the analog source is a medical device; claims 25-26 (Specie IV)
`
`are also dependent on claim 2 and are directed to the analog data acquisition
`
`device of claim 2 with additional timing limitations; claims 28-29 (Specie V) are
`
`also dependent on claim 2 and are addressed to the analog data acquisition
`
`device of claim 2 with the added limitation of control from an external source and
`
`a configuration file; and claims 33 and 34 (Specie Vl) are also directed to an
`
`analog data acquisition and interface device including direct communication with
`
`data devices of the host computer, not to an ASPI driver as asserted by the
`
`Office Action; in summary, Species ll-Vl are directed to the analog data
`
`acquisition device of independent claim 2 and are merely dependent claims
`
`which further limit an existing element of claim 2; thus, the Examiner can
`
`examine all claims together without need for substantial further searching or
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`8
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`additional fields of search; furthermore, the Office Action characterized the
`
`Specie l claims as directed to a "stand along" device, which Applicant interprets
`
`to mean "stand alone;" applicant disagrees with this characterization, as there is
`
`nothing in the independent claims which limit the claims to a stand alone device;
`
`further, dependent claim 3 is expressly further limited to a stand-alone device;
`
`thus, in accordance with the well known doctrine of claim differentiation, only
`
`claim 3 is directed to a stand alone analog data acquisition interface device; all
`
`other claims are not limited to a stand-alone device; the Office Action further
`
`characterized the Specie l claims as directed to a device that communicates via
`
`a customary I/O driver; however, none of the claims have any limitation to a
`
`customary I/O driver; thus, it is Applicant's position that this characterization of
`
`the claims is incorrect, and that none of the claims is limited to requiring a
`
`customary l/O driver.
`
`This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement is
`
`Species restriction, basing on the different implementation/embodiments on how
`
`applicant’s inventive concept can be realized, and as indicated in applicant's
`
`arguments, each of the Species ll-Vl is distinguished by the additional
`
`requirement on how the analog data acquisition device can be
`
`implemented/embodied and a different field of search is needed for each of the
`
`additional requirements. Additionally, with regard to Specie Vl, paragraph [0053]
`
`of applicant’s Specification discloses the embodiment/implementation for having
`
`the ASPI architecture for direct communication. Furthermore, the examiner is
`
`grouping the claims into the different implementation/embodiments, wherein
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`9
`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`9
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`10
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`11
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`12
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`13
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`14
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`15
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`16
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`17
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`18
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`19
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`20
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`21
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`22
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`23
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`24
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`25
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`26
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`27
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`28
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`29
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`30
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`31
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`32
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`33
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`34
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`35
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1117
`36