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 .
Claims Pending
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/09/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 12/09/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s addition of claims 21-29 and cancellation of claims 9-10 and 17-20 in the response filed 12/09/2025, and previous cancellation of claims 2, 11, and 14-16 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-13, and 21-29 are currently under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Newly submitted independent claim 22 recites “wherein the first number of the plurality of carbon fibers in the first region is greater than the second number of the plurality of carbon fibers in the second region”, which renders the claim as distinct from independent claim 1, as claim 22 recites a higher quantity of carbon fibers in the first region than the second region. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the first region is greater than a density of the plurality of carbon fibers the second region”, where claim 22 makes no indication regarding density of carbon fibers. As such, the newly added claim 22 is distinct from the invention of independent claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings – Objection Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings, filed 01/21/2025 have been fully considered, and the previous objection withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation - Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/07/2025, have been fully considered and the previous interpretation withdrawn.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/09/2025, have been fully considered, and the previous 112(a) rejection withdrawn.
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.
Claim 21 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the second region associated with the sweat sensor”, in lined 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For example, it was not previously indicated that there was any type of correlation, or association of the sweat sensor to the second region. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as if there was a prior indication within the claim that states -the sweat sensor is associated with the second region-.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein a relative density of the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the first region associated with the health sensor and the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the second region associated with the sweat sensor varies in a relation to the density of the plurality of carbon fibers”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to how the indicated densities are related to one another. It appears that the applicant has claimed a relative density of carbon fibers in the first region and a relative density of carbon fibers in the second region. Do both of those densities vary in relation to the density of the plurality of carbon fibers, where the density of the plurality of carbon fibers is simply the overall density of carbon fibers? Is this simply stating that the density of carbon fibers in the first and second region are variable? Is this stating that the density of carbon fibers in the first and second region are different from one another? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, the densities of the plurality carbon fibers in the first and second region will be interpreted as being different from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 - Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments, filed 01/21/2025, have been fully considered, and the previous rejection withdrawn.
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.
The claims are generally drawn towards a wearable device with carbon nanotubes that extend from a surface of the device. The wearable device itself receives health signals, analyzes those health signals, and then displays the information of those measured signals.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US Pat. No. 11771334) hereinafter Davis, and further in view of Morshed (US Pub. No. 20150367122) hereinafter Morshed.
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses A wearable device (Abstract (device worn around a body part of a user)) (wearable device – 100) comprising:
a first back surface with a substantially lateral plane (Fig. 4a, (bottom surface of growth substrate – 402) (observable that the growth substrate 402 is flat)) (Col. 17, lines 11-14, “In an embodiment, the miniaturized impedance sensor 400 may be incorporated into a wearable device similar to the wearable device 100 described regarding FIG. 1.”);
a health sensor (miniaturized electrode – 412) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (row 1106d of electrodes)) located parallel to the lateral plane of the first back surface (Col. 23, lines 4-5 (aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate means that it is right on top of it, meaning that it is parallel to the lateral plane));
a plurality of carbon fibers (Col. 31, lines 8-25 (nanotube forest - 1104)) extending substantially orthogonally to the first back surface (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 17, lines 11-14, “In an embodiment, the miniaturized impedance sensor 400 may be incorporated into a wearable device similar to the wearable device 100 described regarding FIG. 1.”) (Col. 31, lines 8-25 (nanotube forest within the sensor)) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)),
the plurality of carbon fibers configured to wick sweat from skin of a user towards the health sensor (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes, where tubes are hollow structures, and are capable of the indicated function)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row 1106d of electrodes)),
a display configured (Col. 8, lines 10-37, display – 104) to display summary information based on signals from the health sensor (Col. 8, lines 10-29 (process measurement data and provide analytic information)) (Col. 8, lines 10-37, display – 104 (process sensor measurement information and display information at the display)) (Col. 17, lines 11-14).
Davis fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a first region corresponding to the health sensor and a second number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a second region of the first back surface other than the first region,
wherein a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the first region is greater than a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the second region.
Davis highly suggests wherein a first number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a first region corresponding to the health sensor (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row 1106d of electrodes)) and a second number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a second region of the first back surface other than the first region (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row- 1106a of electrodes)) (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”),
wherein a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the first region (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row- 1106d of electrodes)) is greater than a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the second region (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row- 1106a of electrodes)) (Fig. 11C, Col. 31, lines 26-54 (row -1106a has more filler – 414 than row 1106d)(nanotubes are present on electrodes -412, while they are not indicated as being present on filler 414, meaning the row with more filler has less density of nanotubes)).
Morshed teaches varying the density of carbon fibers (Par. 56, “In certain aspects, the carbon nanotube pillars of the invention may be used as sensor components of a physiological sensing device, such as an EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), or GSR (Galvanic Skin Response). The electrodes of the invention may be used with any known sensing system.”) (Par. 57, “The spacing between the carbon nanotube pillars can be any suitable space, and can include regular or irregular spacing patterns. In some embodiments, the at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 50 μm. The at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 100 μm. In some embodiments, the at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 200 μm. The at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 500 μm, or other suitable dimensions”), varying the density of carbon fibers affects impedance (Fig. 6a,6b), and multiple sensor types (Par. 25, “A hybrid sensing and stimulation electrode of the invention is also provided that comprises two or more modalities as disclosed herein, including two or more of stimulation and/or sensing, including two or more of physiological stimulation, neurological stimulation, muscle stimulation, EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), and GSR (Galvanic Skin Response).”) (Par. 56, “In certain aspects, the carbon nanotube pillars of the invention may be used as sensor components of a physiological sensing device, such as an EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), or GSR (Galvanic Skin Response). The electrodes of the invention may be used with any known sensing system.”).
Davis and Morshed are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of physiological signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis with that of Davis and Morshed to include wherein a first number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a first region corresponding to the health sensor and a second number of the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed in a second region of the first back surface other than the first region, wherein a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the first region is greater than a density of the plurality of carbon fibers in the second region through the combination of references as differing carbon fiber patterns and spacings are known (Morshed (Par. 57)) and it would have yielded the same or similar results as the carbon fibers of Davis and the predictable result of promoting good contact on the skin of the user (Morshed (Par. 70)) and customizing the sensor impedance (Morshed (Fig. 6a,6b)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Davis further discloses wherein the health sensor (Davis (miniaturized electrode – 412)(Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row 1106d of electrodes))) is an ECG electrode (Davis (Col. 7, lines 13-18) (Col. 17, lines 14-16)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Davis further discloses wherein the plurality of carbon fibers extend lengthwise orthogonally to the ECG electrode (Davis (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.” (the aligned carbon nanotubes extend on the surface of the electrodes as seen in Fig. 11E)) (Col. 17, lines 11-14, “In an embodiment, the miniaturized impedance sensor 400 may be incorporated into a wearable device similar to the wearable device 100 described regarding FIG. 1.”)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Davis further discloses wherein the plurality of carbon fibers are configured to wick sweat from the skin of a user towards the ECG electrode through capillary action (Davis (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes, where tubes are hollow structures and are capable of the indicated function))).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Morshed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US Pat. No. 11122982) hereinafter Wang.
Davis and Morshed teach the device of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Davis fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Wang teaches further comprising a sweat sensor, the sweat sensor configured to analyze analytes or metabolites contained within the sweat of a user (Col. 6, lines 49-67 (sweat lactate biosensor)).
Davis, Morshed, and Wang are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of physiological signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis and Morshed that of Wang to include further comprising a sweat sensor, the sweat sensor configured to analyze analytes or metabolites contained within the sweat of a user through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of tracking both physiochemical and electrophysiological changes of a human (Wang (Col. 6, lines 49-67)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Davis fails to explicitly the limitations of the claim.
However, Davis does teach wherein the plurality of carbon fibers extend lengthwise orthogonally to the sensor (Davis (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.” (the aligned carbon nanotubes extend on the surface of the electrodes as seen in Fig. 11E)) (Col. 17, lines 11-14, “In an embodiment, the miniaturized impedance sensor 400 may be incorporated into a wearable device similar to the wearable device 100 described regarding FIG. 1.”)).
Wang further teaches the sweat sensor (as indicated in claim 6 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis, Morshed, and Wang with that of Davis to include wherein the plurality of carbon fibers extend lengthwise orthogonally to the sweat sensor of Wang through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the durability of the sensor (Davis (Col. 5, lines 54-59)) and tracking both physiochemical and electrophysiological changes of a human (Wang (Col. 6, lines 49-67))
Regarding claim 8, modified Davis further teaches wherein the plurality of carbon fibers are configured to wick sweat from the skin of a user (Davis (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes, where tubes are hollow structures))).
Wang further teaches the sweat sensor (as indicated in claim 6 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis, Morshed, and Wang with that of Davis and Wang to include wherein the plurality of carbon fibers are configured to wick swat from the skin of a user towards the sweat sensor of Wang through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of tracking both physiochemical and electrophysiological changes of a human (Wang (Col. 6, lines 49-67)) and passively transport the sweat to the sensor.
Regarding claim 21, modified Davis fails to explicitly disclose comprising a sweat sensor.
However, Wang teaches a sweat sensor (Col. 6, lines 49-67 (sweat lactate biosensor)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis and Morshed that of Wang to include further comprising a sweat sensor through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of tracking both physiochemical and electrophysiological changes of a human (Wang (Col. 6, lines 49-67)).
Modified Davis fails to explicitly disclose wherein a relative density of the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the first region associated with the health sensor and the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the second region associated with the sweat sensor varies in a relation to the density of the plurality of carbon fibers.
However, Davis highly suggests wherein a relative density of the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the first region associated with the health sensor (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row- 1106d of electrodes)) and the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the second region varies in a relation to the density of the plurality of carbon fibers (Col. 31, lines 8-25, “The nanotube forest 1104 may be infiltrated with carbon, as shown by the rough surface of the nanotubes. As described elsewhere herein, the nanotube forest 1104 may be aligned substantially parallel, with the nanotubes as grown aligned perpendicular to the growth substrate. For example, the nanotube forest 1104 may be part of an array of miniaturized electrodes that includes a carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest. The carbon-infiltrated carbon nanotube forest comprises a bundle of aligned carbon nanotubes.”) (Col. 23, lines 4-27 (carbon nanotubes included with the sensor)) (Col. 31, lines 26-54 (nanotubes are present on the electrode 412)(row- 1106a of electrodes)) (Fig. 11C, Col. 31, lines 26-54 (row -1106a has more filler – 414 than row 1106d)(nanotubes are present on electrodes -412, while they are not indicated as being present on filler 414, meaning the row with more filler has less density of nanotubes)).
Morshed further teaches varying the density of carbon fibers (Par. 56, “In certain aspects, the carbon nanotube pillars of the invention may be used as sensor components of a physiological sensing device, such as an EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), or GSR (Galvanic Skin Response). The electrodes of the invention may be used with any known sensing system.”) (Par. 57, “The spacing between the carbon nanotube pillars can be any suitable space, and can include regular or irregular spacing patterns. In some embodiments, the at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 50 μm. The at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 100 μm. In some embodiments, the at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 200 μm. The at least two carbon nanotube pillars can be spaced apart by about 500 μm, or other suitable dimensions”), varying the density of carbon fibers affects impedance (Fig. 6a,6b), and multiple sensor types (Par. 25, “A hybrid sensing and stimulation electrode of the invention is also provided that comprises two or more modalities as disclosed herein, including two or more of stimulation and/or sensing, including two or more of physiological stimulation, neurological stimulation, muscle stimulation, EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), and GSR (Galvanic Skin Response).”) (Par. 56, “In certain aspects, the carbon nanotube pillars of the invention may be used as sensor components of a physiological sensing device, such as an EEG (electroencephalography), ECG or EKG (electrocardiography), EMG (Electromyography), or GSR (Galvanic Skin Response). The electrodes of the invention may be used with any known sensing system.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis, Morshed, and Wang with that of Davis and Morshed to include wherein a relative density of the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the first region associated with the health sensor and the plurality of carbon fibers disposed in the second region associated with the sweat sensor of Wang varies in a relation to the density of the plurality of carbon fibers through the combination of references as differing carbon fiber patterns and spacings are known (Morshed (Par. 57)), it would have yielded the same or similar results as the carbon fibers of Davis, the predictable result of promoting good contact on the skin of the user (Morshed (Par. 70)) )) and customizing the sensor impedance (Morshed (Fig. 6a,6b)), and it would have yielded the predictable result of tracking both physiochemical and electrophysiological changes of a human (Wang (Col. 6, lines 49-67)) and passively transport the sweat to the sensor.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Morshed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abu-Saude et al. (2015, “Feasibility of patterned vertical CNT for dry electrode sensing of physiological parameters”) hereinafter Abu-Saude.
Davis and Morshed teach the device of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Davis fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Abu-Saude teaches wherein a radius of each carbon fiber from the plurality of carbon fibers is selected to increase the wicking of sweat or a capillary action (Page 10, Col. 2 – Page 11, Col. 1, “We have developed a patterned vertical CNT (pvCNT) for dry impedimetric sensing. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) were used due to its conductivity property and its strength compared to single walled carbon nanotubes. The pvCNT is an ensemble of an array of MWCNT that forms pillars vertical to the circular stainless steel (SS) substrate (ϕ=10 mm, 2 mils thick). Each pillar was grown on 100 μm squared, and the height was between 1 to 1.5 mm with four different spacing between the pillars (50, 100, 200, and 500 μm) in an array formation.”).
Davis, Morshed, and Abu-Saude are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with the measurement of physiological signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis and Morshed with that of Abu-Saude to include wherein a radius of each carbon fiber from the plurality of carbon fibers is selected to increase the wicking of sweat or a capillary action through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of enabling long term signal monitoring with minimal degradation (Abu-Saude (Conclusion)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Davis fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Abu-Saude teaches wherein a relative height of each carbon fiber from the plurality of carbon fibers is selected to increase the wicking of sweat (Page 10, Col. 2 – Page 11, Col. 1, “We have developed a patterned vertical CNT (pvCNT) for dry impedimetric sensing. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) were used due to its conductivity property and its strength compared to single walled carbon nanotubes. The pvCNT is an ensemble of an array of MWCNT that forms pillars vertical to the circular stainless steel (SS) substrate (ϕ=10 mm, 2 mils thick). Each pillar was grown on 100 μm squared, and the height was between 1 to 1.5 mm with four different spacing between the pillars (50, 100, 200, and 500 μm) in an array formation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Davis and Morshed with that of Abu-Saude to include wherein a relative height of each carbon fiber from the plurality of carbon fibers is selected to increase the wicking of sweat through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of enabling long term signal monitoring with minimal degradation (Abu-Saude (Conclusion)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/09/2025 regarding the previous 103 rejection have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that the prior art does not teach the added limitations to claim, have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As the limitation was not previously addressed, the limitation has been addressed in the 103 rejection as indicated above.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, rely on the arguments related to the independent claim, and as such are also deemed as not persuasive.
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 ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791