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 Claims 22-28 are currently pending with claim 28 standing as withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brun del Re et al. US Publication 202004/0073104 (hereinafter Brun del Re) in view of An et al. “A Hybrid Textile Electrode for Electrocardiogram (ECG) Measurement and Motion Tracking” Materials, 11, 1887. Oct. 2018. (hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 22, Brun del Re discloses a bioelectrode comprising: a fabric containing 90-100 mass % of conductive fibers (74 which is described as a layer made entirely of metalized fabrics which means it is 100% of the mass or if the manufacturing process was not perfect, near 100%), anything beyond that would have been obvious given the lack of criticality for the claimed range so long as the metalized portion could reasonable conduct physiological signals from the skin to a processing unit; and a water-absorbing resin coated on the knitted fabric (73, the process of “coating” is considered a product by process type limitation, see MPEP 2113; for purposes of prosecution the limitation is simply read as one layer with the other layer over and in direct contact with it).
Brun del Re is silent on the conductive fabric being a knitted fabric along with the fabric’s voids. An teaches an ECG electrode that is made from knitted nylon fibers plated with conductive metals (section 3. Electrode Material), where the metal plated nylon fibers include voids (Figure 2, showing an SEM micrograph of silver plated nylon which is interchangeable to nickel as used by Brun del Re). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize knitting for the fabric as taught by An with the device of Brun del Re to afford a more flexible, stretchable, and more ergonomic design. Further, as mentioned previously, voids in fabric and fibers are inherent as they, once woven or knitted together, are never perfectly flat or uniform either as individual strands or as a knitted structure.
Though the material listed, sodium polyacrylate, has absorption rates of 800- 1000 times its weight with distilled water, Brun del Re is still silent on the moisture retention index (MRI) of 0.8 or more. This claimed index is the product of a methodology for determining how much pure/distilled water is retained in the claimed resin by using filter paper and a weight over said paper. This specific process is not disclosed, however given that the exact same material choice is utilized it would have been reasonable to assume that they would have had comparable if not identical absorption rates. The skilled artisan before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to select the preferred version (of sodium polyacrylate) for its suitability of maximizing absorption of water for a better hydrogel. Its well-known that variants of polymers exist, however each of the variants of sodium polyacrylate, given the purpose, would perform predictably well for the use as a hydrogel in a bioelectrode.
Brun del Re is also silent on the exact range of the resin’s thickness as the focus on the layer (73) is after the addition of moisture/sweat. However, given that the material is identical to the layer from the Applicant’s specification, is utilized for the exact same application and purpose (super absorbent material to absorb sweat/moisture to facilitate electrical connectivity to skin), and that the Applicant includes no criticality for this specific resin thickness range, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to optimize the initial thickness of the resin in contact with the conductive fibers of Brun del Re in order to allow for adequate moisture absorption for the electrode to operate as intended.
Regarding claim 23, Brun del Re discloses that the knitted fabric is a sheet structure (74, a “sheet” structure implies it’s a layer, not that it must be flat, see Figure 12D).
Regarding claims 24-25, and 27, the resultant combination of Brun del Re and Dias (above), includes one of a conductive, knitted fabric placed over and in direct contact with a resin but is silent on the exact course/wale range, the ratio of resin to knitted fabric, and weight of the knitted fabric. That said, the Applicant includes no criticality for those specific ranges and why they are advantageous over any other similar range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to optimize the sizing, ratio, and weight of the above components given routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 26, Brun del Re discloses that at least one of the conductive fibers is a fiber having a metal film on a surface thereof ([0127] which details nickel plated over synthetic fibers), but does not explicitly disclose that the fiber is synthetic in nature. An teaches an ECG monitoring device that includes electrodes made of fabric specifically made of conductive metal plated over synthetic fibers (section 3. Electrode Material paragraph one, which details that the metal can be one of silver copper, or nickel plated over nylon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the synthetic fibers as taught by An with the device of Brun del Re and Dias as the various fiber types are art recognized equivalents of each other and would have produced predictable results (having a stretchable, breathable fabric electrode).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The resin is not required to be within the voids based on the present claims, as “coated on” is the phrasing. The phrase “defining” might have been what the Applicant was hoping to describe that but that is not how that should have been worded if that was the desired meaning. With that said, some of the super absorbent polymer of Brun del Re would seep naturally into the voids of the conductive fibers are they are massive on the scale when compared to the electrolytic material and super absorbent polymer’s relative molecular sizing.
The Applicant’s argument that there is one layer versus the two distinct layers of Brun del Re is non-persuasive as the resin is explicitly claimed as being coated on the fibers and not physically within the voids.
Even if none of the above were true, and even if the claim was properly claimed as intended with the resin positively claimed as being actively within the voids of the fabric, utilizing a resin on a conductive fabric layer and designed to also fill in some or all of the voids creating by the generic knitting process was known as per US Publication 2019/0090810 at [0011][0027][0051]. The resin is slightly different, conductive on its own and does not require an electrolyte but the concept is the same and would be utilized as part of the rejection when next appropriate.
Regarding the Restriction/Election, the methods of claim 28 would be rejoined and allowed if claim 22 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights