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
The amendments filed 4th April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11, 13 & 15-20 are pending. Claims 12 & 14 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4th April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Macia in view of Woltermann does not disclose ‘wherein the plurality of anchor structures comprise a plurality of friction yarns knitted into the garment, and a maximum static friction coefficient of the plurality of anchor structures is from 0.45 to 0.50’. Applicant continues: ‘Macia does not disclose the maximum static friction coefficient of the anchor structures, much less limitation of “the maximum static friction coefficient of the anchor structures is from 0.45 to 0.50” as claimed in amended claim 1… with respect to also paragraph [0041] of the present application, if the maximum static friction coefficient of the anchor structures is less than 0.45, the function of the anchor structures grabbing the user’s skin may be failed. If the maximum static friction coefficient of the anchor structures is greater than 0.50, user may feel uncomfortable when the user wears the wearable myography device’.
Examiner notes that Applicants specification does not disclose the maximum static friction coefficient of the anchor structures as Amended claim 1 is reciting, thus there is no support for this limitation in the specification. Para. [0041] of Applicants specification discloses this range of maximum static friction coefficient, but it is applied to the garment (as previously recited in the claims filed 19th December 2025), not the anchor structures specifically, introducing new matter. The excerpt from Para. [0041] of Applicants specification which Applicant recites from is provided here for context: “The maximum static friction coefficient of the garment 110 is from 0.45 to 0.50. If the maximum static friction coefficient of the garment 110 is less than 0.45, the function of the anchor structures 120 grabbing the user's skin may be failed. If the maximum static friction coefficient of the garment 110 is greater than 0.50, user may feel uncomfortable when the user wears the wearable electromyography device 100.” See the 112(a) rejection below.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant on the basis that the recited range would have been obvious in light of the prior art. The citations have been updated to account for amendments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 now recites ‘a maximum static friction coefficient of the plurality of anchor structures is from 0.45 to 0.50’, however the specification in Para. [0041] discloses this range of maximum static friction coefficient to be applied to the garment, not the anchor structures that are knitted into the garment.
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.
Claims 17-20 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 17 recites ‘the friction yarns’ in line 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim, the limitation is interpreted to read ‘the plurality of friction yarns’.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190183421 A1 to Macia et al. (hereinafter, Macia) in view of US 20180325452 A1 to Woltermann, as evidenced by Ali Rayhan Sarkhar (hereinafter, Sarkhar), Frictional Properties of Textile Fibers and its Effect in Fiber Processing 18th February 2021, https://textilelearner.net/frictional-properties-of-textile-fibers/.
Regarding Claim 1, Macia discloses a wearable electromyography device (Macia: Para. [0063] ‘an electromyogram sensor (EMG)’), comprising:
a garment (Macia: Para. [0053] ‘a sensor 1 adapted to be integrated in a garment 7’) comprising a plurality of anchor structures (Macia: Para. [0151] ‘wherein the conductive fibers are made of silver coated nylon (X-static® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries) and non-conductive fibers are made of nylon.’) disposed on a first surface of the garment (Macia: Para. [0045] ‘The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.’) and
a plurality of holes penetrating the garment (Macia: Para. [0053] ‘comprises a plurality of orificies 6 or grooves 11 in a predefined pattern’);
a plurality of fabric electrodes disposed on the first surface of the garment (Macia: Para. [0124] ‘shirt with textile electrodes knitted into the fabric’); and
an insulating film disposed on the first surface of the garment (Macia: Para. [0091] ‘the fabric further comprises a coating of an insulating material covering a sensor’),
wherein each of the plurality of fabric electrodes has a central region and a peripheral region surrounding the central region (Macia: Fig. 2; Note: The central region is interpreted as the skin facing surface of the electrode, the peripheral region is interpreted to be at least the edge sides of the electrode which surround the central region.),
wherein a segment of the garment not covered by the insulating film has a first elastic extension rate which is an elastic extension rate of the garment (Macia: Para. [0079] ‘the fabric is able to stretch … at least 130% … at least 160%’),
a segment of the garment covered by the insulating film has a second elastic extension rate which is an elastic extension rate of the garment being coated with the insulating film, and the first elastic extension rate is greater than the second elastic extension rate (Note: the section of the garment covered by the insulating film would have a second elastic extension rate that is less than the first extension rate of the garment.),
wherein the plurality of anchor structures comprise a plurality of friction yarns knitted into the garment (Macia: Para. [0151] ‘wherein the conductive fibers are made of silver coated nylon (X-static® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries) and non-conductive fibers are made of nylon.’) knitted into the garment structures (Macia: Para. [0045] ‘The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.’), and
Macia does not explicitly disclose a maximum static friction coefficient of the plurality of anchor structures is from 0.45 to 0.50.
However, Macia does disclose applying a material with maximum static friction coefficient from 0.45 to 0.50 to the garment for anti-slip properties (Macia: Para. [0042] ‘The term “anti-slip material,” without limitation, refers to a material with a material/skin friction coefficient of … at least 0.4, at least 0.5…’)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the plurality anchor structures to comprise a maximum static friction coefficient of the plurality of anchor structures for anti-slip properties in the recited range through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). Further, the coefficient of maximum static friction is a variable that one of ordinary skill in the art could modify to prevent slippery and harsh fabric in the garment as evidenced by Ali Rayhan Sarkhar (hereinafter, Sarkhar), Frictional Properties of Textile Fibers and its Effect in Fiber Processing 18th February 2021, https://textilelearner.net/frictional-properties-of-textile-fibers/.
Macia does not explicitly disclose the peripheral regions of the plurality of fabric electrodes are sealed by the insulating film, and the central regions of the plurality of fabric electrodes are exposed by the insulating film.
However, Woltermann teaches the peripheral regions of the plurality of fabric electrodes are sealed by the insulating film, and the central regions of the plurality of fabric electrodes are exposed by the insulating film (Woltermann: Para. [0024] ‘wherein the insulating structure at least completely covers the conducting structure and the terminal, and, in order to ensure that said conducting structure and terminal are well insulated from the body, the covering can be far over the edge of said components, but at least partially does not cover the electrodes, wherein, in order to protect the electrodes from wear, covers the edges of the electrodes, but at the same time leaves the surface of the electrodes free in order to permit direct contact with the skin.’)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the insulating material of Macia by rearranging the insulating film to cover the peripherals of each of the electrodes as taught by Woltermann. This rearrangement of parts would involve adapting the insulating material to cover the peripherals using a known method to provide predictable results, in this case it is done for the sake of safety and protecting the electrodes from wear (Woltermann: Para. [0048]; Note: The covering of conductive materials by insulating materials is known to provide safety, in this case by creating a physical barrier to prevent accidental contact with the conductive parts of the electrode, preventing electric shock.)
Regarding Claim 2, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the first elastic extension rate is 130% to 160% (Macia: Para. [0079] ‘the fabric is able to stretch … at least 130% … at least 160%) Para. [0079]).
Regarding Claim 3, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia does not explicitly disclose wherein the second elastic extension rate is 110% to 120%.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the second elastic extension rate to be in the range of 110% to 120% as a matter of determining an optimum value. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A..
Regarding Claim 4, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the plurality of holes are respectively disposed between the plurality of anchor structures (Macia: Para. [0048] ‘the orifices 6 of the electrode 3 as depicted in FIG. 1A show a circular or geometric pattern; Fig. 1D).
Regarding Claim 5, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the garment comprises a first region and a second region, and a distribution density of the plurality of holes at the first region is greater than a distribution density of the plurality of holes at the second region (Macia: Para. [0050] ‘a plurality of orificies 6 or grooves 11 present different patterns, including, without limitation, circular, sinusoidal, straight lines, hexagon, pentagon, tetragon, triangle, square, diamond and other geometric shapes, or a combination thereof.’; Para. [0051] ‘electrode 3 comprises one or more orifices 6 of any shape and size’; Note: multiple electrodes anchored into the garment with differing patterns and varying size result in a differing distribution density of the plurality of holes and would be considered regions comprised within the garment, thus Claim 5 falls within the scope of the prior art).
Regarding Claim 6, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses further comprising a wrap fastener connected to the garment (Macia: Para. [0119] ‘Any kind of a fastener that allows, without limitation, an electronic device to be easily attached and detached may be used. In an embodiment, in use said electronic device is attached, without limitation on the outside of the garment and may be easily attached and detached by a user’).
Regarding Claim 7, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 6. Macia further discloses wherein the wrap fastener comprises a loop and hook fastener (Macia: Para. [0119] ‘…a conductive Velcro®).
Regarding Claim 8, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses comprising a plurality of conductive pieces disposed on the garment and connected to the plurality of fabric electrodes, respectively (Macia: Para. [0053] ‘the conductive layer 2 … an electrical connector 5 connected with the track 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 8. Macia further discloses comprising a wireless transmission module connected to the plurality of conductive pieces (Macia: Para. [0081] ‘electronic instrument 14 that is attached to an electrical connection either directly or through, without limitation a wire, Bluetooth, wireless, RF wireless, other wireless, infrared, laser or optical that is adapted to receive, collect, process, store, and/or transmit data from sensors 1 incorporated in a garment’).
Regarding Claim 10, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 8. Macia further discloses further comprising a plurality of fabric wirings connecting to the plurality of fabric electrodes to the plurality of conductive pieces (Macia: Para. [0104] ‘where the circuit board is a fabric mesh and a wiring system is conductive silicone printed on the fabric of the garment.’),
wherein the insulating film covers the plurality of fabric wirings (Macia: Para. [0104] ‘coating a layer of an insulating material covering the first layer of the silicone rubber loaded with an electrically conductive material’).
Regarding Claim 15, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the plurality of friction yarns are knitted into the garment by flat knitting (Macia: Para. [0045] ‘The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.’; Note: Flat knitting is a known method in the art.).
Regarding Claim 16, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the plurality of friction yarns are knitted into the garment by warp knitting (Macia: Para. [0045] ‘The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.’; Note: Warp knitting is a known method in the art.).
Regarding Claim 17, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses wherein the garment comprises: a plurality of basic units, each of the basic units comprising: a plurality of elastic yarns (Macia: Para. [0058] ‘with elastic yarns (such as LYCRA® branded spandex from INVISTA™ S.a.r.l).’);
the plurality of friction yarns wound on the plurality of elastic yarns (Macia: Para. [0058] ‘a conductive fiber is made of silver coated nylon (such as X-STATIC® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries)’); and
a plurality of floating weft yarns (Macia: Para. [0058] ‘a non-conductive fiber is made of nylon’)
wrapped on an outer facing side of the friction yarns (Macia: Fig. 1D); and
a plurality of linking yarns selectively interconnecting the plurality of basic units (Macia: Para. [0059] ‘the high degree of adhesion strength between a fabric and a flexible, elastic and electrically conductive material, including, without limitation, silicone rubber and/or flurorosilicone rubber including an electrically conductive material is achieved by the coating material penetrating the interstices between the strands anchoring with the structure of the fibers of the fabric, resulting in the integration of the elastic and electrically conductive material into the fabric.’; Note: any of the yarns can be considered a plurality of linking yarns configured to be selectively interconnecting the plurality of basic units).
Regarding Claim 18, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 17. Macia further discloses wherein the plurality of holes are spaces between the plurality of basic units without being interconnected by the plurality of linking yarns (Macia: Para. [0053] ‘wherein the electrode 3 of the conductive layer 2 comprises a plurality of orificies 6 or grooves 11 in a predefined pattern filled with an anti-slip material.; Note: The orifices are defined by the interconnected fibers of the conductive layer, not interconnected themselves, the orifices are filled with an anti-slip material such as silicone rubber Fig. 1D; Para. [0042], lines 5-13).
Regarding Claim 19, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 17. Macia further discloses wherein the plurality of linking yarns interconnect the plurality of friction yarns of the plurality of basic units (Macia: Para. [0059] ‘the high degree of adhesion strength between a fabric and a flexible, elastic and electrically conductive material, including, without limitation, silicone rubber and/or flurorosilicone rubber including an electrically conductive material is achieved by the coating material penetrating the interstices between the strands anchoring with the structure of the fibers of the fabric, resulting in the integration of the elastic and electrically conductive material into the fabric.).
Regarding Claim 20, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 17. Macia further discloses wherein an inner facing side of the plurality of friction yarns (Macia: Para. [0058] ‘a conductive fiber is made of silver coated nylon (such as X-STATIC® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries)’)
is free of being wrapped by the plurality of floating weft yarns (Macia: Para. [0058] ‘a non-conductive fiber is made of nylon’; Note: The conductive layer houses the plurality of friction yarns, free of the non-conductive fibers (weft yarns are interpreted as any yarn that could run horizontally across fabric); Para. [0053] ‘ as depicted in FIG. 2, the conductive layer 2 is made of conductive material, selected from conductive fabric…a conductive layer 2 to be placed in contact with the skin 12 for receiving physiological signals comprising at least: an electrode 3; a track 4; and an electrical connector 5 connected with the track 4; wherein the electrode 3 of the conductive layer 2 comprises a plurality of orificies 6 or grooves 11 in a predefined pattern filled with an anti-slip material.’).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macia in view of Woltermann in further view of US Pub. App. No. 20120144561 A1 to Begriche et al. (hereinafter, Begriche), as evidenced by Sarkhar.
Regarding Claim 11, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia further discloses the plurality of fabric electrodes comprising a first differential electrode pair (Fig. 4 item 1 sensors).
Macia does not explicitly disclose a second differential electrode pair, and a reference electrode.
However, Belgriche teaches a plurality of electrodes provided in pairs and a reference electrode accompanying each pair of electrodes (Belgriche: Para. [0034] ‘A reference electrode may be provided with a pair of electrodes. Alternatively, a plurality of electrodes are provided in pairs’).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the electrodes of Macia to include a plurality of electrode pairs with a reference electrode as taught by Belgriche to provide information on the target muscle from a different angle, providing additional information useful for diagnostics. Belgriche further teaches that other configurations of electrodes in the garment would be readily apparent to those skilled in the art. (Belgriche: Para. [0034] ‘each pair acts as a "lead" in order to provide information on the muscle or neurons from a different angle… Other configurations of electrodes in the garment 100 will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art.’).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macia in view of Woltermann in further view of US Pub. App. No. 20110024940 A1 to Qureshi et al. (hereinafter, Qureshi) as evidenced by Sarkhar.
Regarding Claim 13, Macia in view of Woltermann discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Macia does not explicitly disclose the area ratio of the plurality of holes to garment being 10% to 15%.
However, Qureshi teaches an area ratio of the plurality of holes to the garment can be between 0.1 and 10%, which falls within the scope of the invention (Qurechi: Para. [0054] ‘The percent open area can be between 0.1 and 10%’; Para. [0131] ‘Percent open area is the ratio of the total open area of the holes to the total area of the specimen times 100.’).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the area ratio of the orifices of Macia to have an open area of 10% as taught by Qureshi in order to enable improved stretching of the material (Qurechi: Para. [0005] ‘stretchable for conforming fit and vapor permeable for providing breathability.’).
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 SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights