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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 Apr 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 27 Apr 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 12 and 21 have been amended, claims 1-11 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 12-31 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 27 Apr 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Scheffler et al. (US 20120246795 A1), hereinafter Scheffler, as explained in further detail below.
No specific arguments were made regarding dependent claims 13-31 and the previously cited prior art references. Therefore, dependent claims 13-31 are also rejected below.
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120246795 A1), hereinafter Scheffler, in view of Berg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150230719 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Berg, and Cobbett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160135743 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Scheffler discloses a pocket (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is a complete pocket") for securing a monitoring device (monitor device 500) with a sensor (paragraph [0063], "Monitor device 500 may itself include sensors to correspond to these modules"; paragraph [0078], "monitor device 500 is configured to receive data from sensors 400, which may be included in monitor device 500"), the pocket including:
a first surface, wherein:
the first surface is formed of a first sheet material having a first elasticity (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is a pocket formed by a fabric layer"),
the first surface has a first side for adhesively attaching the pocket to an article of clothing (paragraph [0068], "Device retention element 300 may be coupled to textile layer 100 by, for example, being integral therewith, being adhered, stitched, welded, tied, clipped, snapped, or mounted thereto"; paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is a complete pocket, attached to the exterior or interior of, or integrated within, textile layer 100"), and
the first surface has a second side providing a substrate for the monitoring device when inserted into the pocket (paragraph [0068], "a device retention element 300 configured to retain a device, such as monitor device 500"; see annotated Fig. 13 below);
a wall formed of a third material coupled to the first sheet material (paragraph [0074], "support element 310 may be laminated on or within device retention element 300. In some exemplary embodiments, support element 310 may be printed onto device retention element 300"), the wall having a higher elasticity than the first sheet material (paragraph [0074], support element 310 "may be an elastic (e.g., rubber) band integrated into device retention 300"), the wall including an opening (Fig. 2, paragraph [0069], opening 320; paragraph [0072], holes 330), and the third material selected to elastically yield to the monitoring device when inserted into the pocket (paragraph [0074], "support element 310 particularly supports the area around opening 320. This may help to minimize wear around opening 320 that may result from repeated insertion and removal of monitor device 500"; Fig. 21, paragraph [0076], "device retention element 300 may comprise elastic bands 350 configured to hold monitor device 500 in place");
a window formed of a fourth material positioned around and coupled to the opening of the wall (Fig. 2, paragraph [0074], "Support element 310 may further include an opening support element 314 disposed about opening 320, which may provide support and/or facilitate access to the area"), whereby the fourth material retains the monitoring device within the pocket while the wall yields relative to the less elastic first sheet material of the first surface to cause the monitoring device, when placed for use in the pocket, to elongate the wall and protrude away from the first surface and toward the opening of the window (Fig. 13); and
an access port (Figs. 2, 15, paragraphs [0069], [0076], opening 320) configured to receive the monitoring device into the pocket when opened (paragraph [0072], "an opening 320 for insertion and removal of monitoring device 500"; paragraph [0076], "a pocket including opening 320 as an elongated opening for receiving monitor device 500 therethrough"), and configured to secure the monitoring device within the pocket against an elastic force of the wall when closed (paragraph [0074], "support element 310 may be printed onto device retention element 300, or may be an elastic (e.g., rubber) band integrated into device retention 300. ... Support element 310 may include, as in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2, vertical bands 312 that particularly support vertical segments of device retention element 300. This may help to minimize movement of monitor device 500 in the vertical direction").
Although Scheffler further discloses a second material configured to inhibit movement of the monitoring device in the pocket along the first surface (paragraph [0077], "device retention element 300 includes a spacer element 340, which can provide padding between monitor device 500 and the wearer, can help dampen and control movement of monitor device 500, can reduce shock and/or shear forces on monitor device 500 ... where device retention element 300 is a pocket, spacer element 340 may be positioned inside or on the pocket, for example, configured to be positioned between an interior area of the pocket a wearer of sensor garment 10. Spacer element 340 may be coupled to textile layer 100 on at least one surface. Spacer element 340 may be a three-dimensional mesh or foam"), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose a retaining ring formed of a second material, the retaining ring forming a raised perimeter to inhibit movement of the monitoring device in the pocket along the first surface.
However, Berg teaches a wearable system for monitoring biometric signals (Abstract) comprising a retaining ring formed of a second material, the retaining ring forming a raised perimeter to inhibit movement of a device in the pocket along the first surface (Fig. 8A, paragraph [0079], foam ring 116).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scheffler with the teachings of Berg to provide a retaining ring to inhibit movement of a device in the pocket because doing so would not only provide stability to the modular physiological monitoring device, but also protect the user from the rigidity of the monitoring device (Berg, paragraph [0079]).
Although Scheffler further discloses that the wall includes an opening configured to correspond to features of the monitoring device (paragraphs [0072], [0076], holes 330), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose that the opening is positioned to expose the sensor of the monitoring device when placed for use in the pocket.
Although Scheffler further discloses that the wall yields to increase a force of engagement of a sensing region of the monitoring device with a target surface relative to the first surface (paragraph [0102], "to optimize skin contact, sensors 400 may be...pillowed (e.g., a sensor supported by a backing material between the sensor and textile layer 100, where the backing material causes the sensor to tend to extend out from the textile layer against the wearer's skin, and may be, for example, the material of spacer element 340 or the lofty polyester fiberfill commonly used in sleeping pillows)"; paragraph [0082]), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose that the fourth material of the window has a lower elasticity than the third material of the wall.
However, Cobbett teaches a pocket (Fig. 11, paragraph [0158], pocket 940) for securing a monitoring device (Fig. 11, paragraph [0158], electronic module 930) with a sensor (Fig. 41, paragraphs [0155], [0196], at least one sensor 932), the pocket including:
a wall formed of a third material (main body piece 950) including an opening positioned to expose the sensor of the monitoring device when placed for use in the pocket (Fig. 18, paragraph [0173], second hole 950B for the sensor opening 945); and
a window formed of a fourth material positioned around and coupled to the opening of the wall (Figs. 31-32, paragraph [0174], frame piece 959), the fourth material having a lower elasticity than the third material of the wall (Fig. 32, paragraph [0173], frame piece 959 may be made from a polycarbonate material).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scheffler and Berg with the teachings of Cobbett so that the opening is positioned to expose the sensor of the monitoring device when placed for use in the pocket, and that the fourth material of the window has a lower elasticity than the third material of the wall, because doing so permits greater capability for forming continuous contact with the user's body (Cobbett, paragraph [0196]), and protects and reinforces the sensor opening (Cobbett, paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the first sheet material includes a high friction surface facing an interior of the pocket, the high friction surface having a greater coefficient of sliding friction than other interior surfaces of the pocket (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is formed at least partially of other materials, for example, plastic, rubber, thermoplastic polyurethane, or neoprene"). Scheffler further discloses that the interior of the pocket includes spacer element 340, which can provide padding between monitor device 500 and the wearer, can help dampen and control movement of monitor device 500, can reduce shock and/or shear forces on monitor device 500 (paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses a high friction surface treatment for the first sheet material on the first surface, the high friction surface treatment having a greater coefficient of sliding friction than other interior surfaces of the pocket in order to inhibit lateral movement of the monitoring device within the pocket along the first surface (paragraph [0077], "device retention element 300 includes a spacer element 340, which can provide padding between monitor device 500 and the wearer, can help dampen and control movement of monitor device 500, can reduce shock and/or shear forces on monitor device 500, and can minimize injury to the wearer in the event of impact at or proximate to monitor device 500. ... where device retention element 300 is a pocket, spacer element 340 may be positioned inside or on the pocket, for example, configured to be positioned between an interior area of the pocket a wearer of sensor garment 10. Spacer element 340 may be coupled to textile layer 100 on at least one surface. Spacer element 340 may be a three-dimensional mesh or foam that dampens shear forces, thereby minimizing incident forces on monitor device 500, and minimizing discomfort to the wearer of garment 10").
Regarding claim 15, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Although Scheffler further discloses that the pocket is formed of neoprene (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is formed at least partially of other materials, for example...neoprene", and that spacer element 340 is formed of mesh or foam (paragraph [0077]), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose that the retaining ring is formed of neoprene.
As described above, Berg discloses a foam retaining ring 116 (Fig. 8A) to provide stability in the structure (Berg, paragraph [0079]). However, Berg does not teach that the retaining ring is formed specifically of neoprene.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a retaining ring formed specifically of neoprene, for the purpose of cushioning the monitoring device similarly to the foam material disclosed by Berg, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. As described above, Berg discloses a foam retaining ring 116 (Fig. 8A) has a size and thickness “to provide stability to a control module 130 seated within the fabric layer 112 at the cradle 114, and can further function to protect the user from the rigidity of the cradle as well as shielding regions where sensor leads are coupled to the cradle” (Berg, paragraph [0079]). However, Berg does not teach that the retaining ring specifically has a thickness of between 0.5 and 1.5 millimeters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a retaining ring with a thickness of between 0.5 and 1.5 millimeters, in order to optimize the stability and protection of the ring, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler discloses that the third material of the wall includes an elastic rubber band (paragraph [0074]). Cobbett discloses that the third material of the wall (main body piece 950) is formed from elastic fabric material (paragraph [0173]), which could encompass a nylon blend woven material. Berg discloses that the garment can include nylon (paragraph [0031]) and that the wall is fabric (paragraph [0079]), which could include a nylon blend woven material. Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett in combination do not disclose that the third material of the wall specifically includes a nylon blend woven material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the wall of a nylon blend woven material, for the purpose of keeping the monitoring device secure while also maintaining accessibility, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the first sheet material includes neoprene (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is formed at least partially of other materials, for example...neoprene").
Regarding claim 19, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Cobbett discloses that the window (frame piece 959) may be placed around the holes for the sensor opening to protect and reinforce the sensor opening (paragraph [0174]). “Around the holes” could be interpreted as within and along the edge of the sensor opening, so that the inner edge of the frame is smaller than the sensor opening. Cobbett does not specifically disclose sizing the window smaller than a projection of the device normal to a plane of the window when the device is placed for use in the pocket.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the window smaller than a projection of the device normal to a plane of the window, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the access port includes a seal (paragraph [0072], "opening 320 is sealable"), the seal including one or more of a zipper, a snap, and a hook-and-loop fastener (paragraph [0072], "opening 320 is sealable, for example, by a zipper, hook-and-loop fastener, ties, snaps, buttons, or other suitable closing elements").
Regarding claim 21, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses the article of clothing (paragraph [0066], sensor garment 10; paragraph [0067], "Textile portion 100 may form the shape and fit of sensor garment 10") coupled to the pocket with an adhesive on the first side of the first surface (paragraph [0068], "Device retention element 300 may be coupled to textile layer 100 by, for example, being integral therewith, being adhered, stitched, welded, tied, clipped, snapped, or mounted thereto").
Regarding claim 22, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the article of clothing includes an undergarment (paragraph [0066], briefs).
Regarding claim 23, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the article of clothing includes one or more of a bicep band (paragraph [0066], sleeve or arm band), a sock (paragraph [0066]), a calf band (paragraph [0070], "device retention element 300 may be positioned to correspond to the...leg"), and a chest band (paragraph [0070], "For example, device retention element 300 may be positioned to correspond to the...chest").
Regarding claim 24, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the access port is accessible through an interior surface of the article of clothing when the article of clothing is worn by a user (paragraph [0069], "device retention element 300 is a complete pocket, attached to the exterior or interior of, or integrated within, textile layer 100"; paragraph [0071], "device retention element 300 may be positioned on an interior of textile layer 100"; paragraph [0086], "Throughout the figures, sensor garment 10 can be interpreted as being depicted inside-out", thus Fig. 2 depicts the interior of sensor garment 10).
Regarding claim 25, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the access port is accessible through an exterior surface of the article of clothing when the article of clothing is worn by a user (paragraph [0069], "textile layer 100 may include opening 320 providing access to the pocket from the exterior of textile layer 100"; paragraph [0071], "Device retention element 300 may be positioned on the exterior of textile layer 100, as shown in FIG. 2".)
Regarding claim 26, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the article of clothing includes one or more of a pair of shorts or a t-shirt (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 27, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the pocket is positioned over an artery of a user (paragraph [0066], the various garment examples listed (e.g., arm band, head band, socks) position the monitoring device over arteries in the user's arm, head, feet/legs). Although Scheffler further discloses that the sensor can be a heart rate (ECG) monitor or a light sensor (paragraph [0078]), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose that the pocket is positioned for acquiring photoplethysmography data when the article of clothing is worn by the user. However, Cobbett further teaches that the pocket is positioned over an artery of a user (paragraph [0156], "armbands, wristbands, leg bands, and belts" position the monitoring device over arteries in the user's arm, wrist, leg, or torso) for acquiring photoplethysmography data when the article of clothing is worn by the user (paragraph [0196], "the heart rate sensor 932...is an optical sensor"; paragraphs [0204], [0211]).
Regarding claim 28, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses the monitoring device (paragraph [0062], monitor device 500) placed for use in the pocket (Figs. 2, 20-23, paragraphs [0068], [0076]). Cobbett further teaches the sensor exposed through the window (paragraph [0168], "The pocket 940 may also include one or more sensor openings 945 configured to permit the sensor(s) 932 of the module 930 an unimpeded path to sense the user's body directly").
Regarding claim 29, the system of claim 28 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Although Scheffler further discloses that the sensor can be a heart rate (ECG) monitor or a light sensor (paragraph [0078]), Scheffler does not explicitly disclose that the monitoring device includes a photoplethysmography monitor.
However, Cobbett further teaches that the monitoring device includes a photoplethysmography monitor (paragraph [0196], "the heart rate sensor 932...is an optical sensor"; paragraphs [0204], [0211]).
Regarding claim 30, the system of claim 29 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the monitoring device includes an electrocardiogram monitor (paragraph [0078], ECG heart monitor).
Regarding claim 31, the system of claim 29 is obvious over Scheffler, Berg, and Cobbett, as explained above. Scheffler further discloses that the monitoring device monitors one or more of muscle oxygen saturation (paragraph [0078], oxygen levels), temperature (paragraph [0078], body temperature, thermocouple), movement (paragraph [0078], acceleration, distance, speed, direction, heading, accelerometer, gyroscope), and position (paragraph [0078], location, orientation, GPS, echolocation, compass).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Martinez et al. (US 20140180019 A1) discloses a biometric monitoring device and multiple carrying cases for the monitoring device. An adhesive applied to the back of the carrying case allows the user to attached the case to any convenient part of the wearer's body, clothing, or accessories, e.g., such as a backpack, beltpack, purse, or anything else the wearer might carry or wear (paragraph [0122])
Sabesan (US 20150157252 A1) discloses systems, devices, and associated methods for assessing neurological disorders such as, e.g. seizures relating to, among other things, epilepsy based, in part, on signals received from one or more accelerometers. The accelerometers can be attached to a patient’s clothing using an adhesive (paragraph [0042])
Evke et al. (US 20220003577 A1) discloses wearable sensors that include bandages or patches adhered to the garment or skin, inserted in pockets, sewn into fabrics having electrically conductive fibers or flexible printed circuit fabric (paragraph [0081])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights