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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02 Oct 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 12 has been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 12-31 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02 Oct 2025, with respect to objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the drawing amendments. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02 Oct 2025, with respect to objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02 Oct 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 02 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited Cobbett, Berg, and Schlottau do not explicitly disclose the currently amended feature of claim 12 “a window formed of a fourth material positioned around and coupled to the opening of the wall, the fourth material having a lower elasticity than the third material of the wall, 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 provide a structure urging the sensor with a normal force toward the opening of the window and away from the first surface when the monitoring device is placed for use in the pocket, thereby causing the monitoring device, when placed for use in the pocket, to protrude from the first surface for improved engagement of a sensing region of the monitoring device with a target surface” (Remarks, pages 12-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cobbett discloses this feature, as explained in further detail below.
No specific arguments were made regarding dependent claims 13-31 and the previously cited prior art references. Therefore, 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, 15-17, 19, and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobbett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160135743 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Cobbett, in view of Berg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150230719 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Cobbett discloses a system (Fig. 11, paragraph [0155], band 920) including 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 first surface providing a substrate for the monitoring device when inserted into the pocket (Fig. 18, paragraph [0173], outer portion 950E of main body piece 950; Fig. 32, paragraph [0174], outer pocket interior piece 952, "the outer portion 950E combines with other pieces (e.g., the outer pocket interior piece 952 and the tongue 954B) to define the outer wall 943"), the first surface formed of a first sheet material having a first elasticity (paragraph [0173], "main body piece 950 is formed from an elastic fabric material");
a wall formed of a third material (main body piece 950) having a higher elasticity than the first sheet material (paragraph [0175], "During the heat pressing, the bonding materials are heat-activated to bond the adjacent surfaces together, and may add some local rigidity to the structure as well. This local rigidity is particularly advantageous for retaining the shape of the pocket 940 and for limiting axial stretching"; paragraph [0009], "The inner and outer walls of the pocket may be heat pressed with a bonding material, such that the elastic fabric material defining the inner and outer walls of the pocket has lower elasticity than the elastic fabric material defining the tubular body"; lower rigidity/higher elasticity is limited to portions of the band that have less bonding material, i.e. the portions of the inner and outer walls that have less bonding material), the wall including an opening positioned to expose a sensor of the monitoring device when placed for use in the pocket (Fig. 18, paragraph [0173], second hole 950B for the sensor opening 945);
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),
whereby the fourth material retains the monitoring device within the pocket (paragraph [0174], "frame piece 959 may additionally be placed around the opening 955B in the inner pocket structure piece 955 to protect and reinforce the sensor opening 945")
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 protrude away from the first surface and toward the opening of the window to increase a force of engagement of a sensing region of the monitoring device with a target surface relative to the first surface (paragraph [0158], "the band may form a seal or other surface around a portion of the user's skin in a manner that distributes forces such that at least a portion of the band 920 is held against the user's skin with a less force per unit area compared to any surface of an electronic module 930 held in the pocket 940 is pressed against the skin when the user is wearing the band 920"; paragraph [0196], “Band 920 may have an aperture that allows a front surface of the protrusion to contact the user’s skin”; paragraph [0200], "the projection 939 extends through the sensor opening 945 to place the sensor 932 in closer proximity with the user's body"); and
an access port configured to receive the device into the pocket when opened and configured to secure the device within the pocket against an elastic force of the wall when closed (Fig. 38, paragraph [0165], access opening 942).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an elastic 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.
Although Cobbett discloses a retaining ring formed of a second material (Figs. 21 and 34, paragraphs [0173]-[0174], interior pocket edge bonding piece 953; Figs. 27, paragraphs [0173], [0175], outer pocket edge trim piece 956), Cobbett does not explicitly disclose that the retaining ring forms a raised perimeter to inhibit movement of a 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobbett 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]).
Regarding claim 15, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. 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 Cobbett and Berg, 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 Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. 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. Cobbett and Berg 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 19, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, 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 21, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses an article of clothing coupled to the pocket (paragraph [0156]).
Regarding claim 22, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses that the article of clothing includes an undergarment (paragraph [0156], shorts).
Regarding claim 23, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses that the article of clothing includes a bicep band (paragraph [0155], "the band is configured to be worn in a location between the elbow and the shoulder").
Regarding claim 24, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett 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 [0165], "the pocket 940 has an access opening 942 defined on the inner side 927 of the band 920").
Regarding claim 25, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett 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 (Fig. 15A, paragraph [0172], "access opening 942 is exposed on the outer surface 928 of the band 920").
Regarding claim 26, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses that the article of clothing includes shorts (paragraph [0156]).
Regarding claim 27, the system of claim 21 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses 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 Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses the monitoring device (Fig. 11, paragraph [0158], electronic module 930), placed for use in the pocket with the sensor exposed through the window (paragraph [0196], "Band 920 may have an aperture that allows a front surface of the protrusion to contact the user's skin").
Regarding claim 29, the system of claim 28 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses 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 Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett does not explicitly disclose that the monitoring device includes an electrocardiogram monitor. However, Berg further teaches that the wearable system for monitoring biometric signals includes an electrocardiogram monitor (paragraphs [0028] and [0034]).
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 Cobbett with the teachings of Berg to provide an electrocardiogram monitor because doing so enables a user to gain insights into how to maintain or improve performance of a physical activity in a beneficial manner, in real time (Berg, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 31, the system of claim 29 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett further discloses that the monitoring device monitors position (paragraphs [0204]-[0207]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobbett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160135743 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Cobbett, in view of Berg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150230719 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Berg, and further in view of Pedley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150087925 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Pedley.
Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Neither Cobbett nor Berg teaches that 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 in order to inhibit lateral movement of the monitoring device within the pocket along the first surface.
However, Pedley teaches a contact sensor and system for incorporation within clothing and other wearable items to monitor activity at a body surface (Abstract) wherein 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 in order to inhibit lateral movement of a device within the pocket along the first surface (Fig. 6C, paragraph [0078], surface 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobbett and Berg with the teachings of Pedley to provide a high friction surface facing an interior of the pocket because doing so minimizes movement of the electronic unit in the pocket (Pedley, paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Neither Cobbett nor Berg teaches 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.
However, Pedley teaches a contact sensor and system for incorporation within clothing and other wearable items to monitor activity at a body surface (Abstract) comprising 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 a device within the pocket along the first surface (Fig. 6C, paragraph [0078], surface 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobbett and Berg with the teachings of Pedley to provide a high friction surface facing an interior of the pocket because doing so minimizes movement of the electronic unit in the pocket (Pedley, paragraph [0078]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobbett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160135743 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Cobbett, in view of Berg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150230719 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Berg, and further in view of Kurzweil et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080287770 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Kurzweil.
Regarding claim 18, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Cobbett discloses that the first sheet material (main body piece 950) is made of an elastic fabric material (paragraph [0173]), but does not disclose that the first sheet material includes neoprene. Kurzweil teaches a garment for ambulatory, physiological monitoring of a patient (Abstract) wherein the first sheet material includes neoprene (paragraphs [0009], [0016], [0020], [0039], [0066], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cobbett and Berg with the teachings of Kurzweil to provide a first sheet material that includes neoprene because neoprene can be worn comfortably next to the skin and has some resistance to movement against the skin (Kurzweil, paragraph [0039]), and further 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobbett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160135743 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Cobbett, in view of Berg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150230719 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Berg, and further in view of Fenwick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020124295 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Fenwick.
Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 12 is obvious over Cobbett and Berg, as explained above. Neither Cobbett nor Berg teaches that the access port includes a seal, the seal including one or more of a zipper, a snap, and a hook-and-loop fastener. However, Fenwick teaches a clothing apparatus with a sensor unit retaining pocket (Abstract) wherein the access port includes a seal, the seal including a hook-and-loop fastener (Fig. 3, paragraph [0070], Velcro strips 130a,b).
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 Cobbett and Berg with the teachings of Fenwick to provide an access port with a hook-and-loop fastener seal because doing so would secure the monitoring device in the pocket while still being re-openable (Fenwick, paragraph [0070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van der Hulst et al. (WO 2018044170 A1) discloses a heart rate measurement band comprising a pocket wall that is elastic (Figs. 3-4, band pocket wall 231)
Caden et al. (US 20190015016 A1) discloses wearable articles with elastic pockets that can facilitate monitoring of the wearer (paragraph [0055]).
Mulpuru (US 20170027513 A1) discloses a medical monitoring device 104 housed in a pouch comprising a wall that yields when the monitoring device is placed in the pouch (Fig. 2F)
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 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
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796