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 amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-18, 22 and 25 remain pending in the application. Claims 13, 19-21 and 23-24 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claim 1-12 and 24 have overcome the 112(f) rejections previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 07/17/2025. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-12 have overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth the in the Non-final Office Action mailed 07/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C §101 rejections, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 overcomes the 101 rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 recites: “a sensor, a memory configured to store wearable article size information” (generic computer components), “and an interface that is configured to permit the transfer of the wearable article size information from the memory to circuitry coupled to the interface.” (mere instructions to apply an abstract idea to general computer components). “The circuitry comprises a processor configured to: read, via the first connection, the memory of the wearable article so as to obtain the wearable article size information determine, based on the wearable article size information, a compensation that should be performed to sensor data received from the wearable article to compensate for electrical properties of the wearable article; and obtain, via the second connection, sensor data from the sensor of the wearable article, and apply the determined compensation to the sensor data”(mere data gathering). The applicants amended claim 1 is seen as an abstract idea specifically a mental process wherein the mental process is mere data gathering and outputting and an application an abstract idea to generic computer components.
Further, applicant argues the claim does not relate to commercial/legal interaction and cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees, gathering data from sensors and performing a compensation, which is seen as a mathematic process, is fully achievable by a human. Applicant argues: ” a specific physical arrangement of wearable article and circuitry”. However, the specific wearable article and circuitry amount to merely generic computer components. Applicant further argues: “how they interact, and how sensor data is processed.” However, this is seen as mere data gathering and outputting and applying an abstract idea to generic computer elements.
Therefore, claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 amendments, Applicant argues: “The radiation sensor 116 is not a sensor of the garment” Examiner respectfully disagrees Poutiatine describes sensor 116 to be a part of the wearable garment as shown in figure 1 ([Figure 1]; Poutiatine discloses sensor 116 attached directly to the garment separate from module 100 (as shown boxed in figure 1 below))
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
255
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues: “Module 100 does not obtain solar radiation data from the radiation sensor via a connection” ([0013]; “The system 100 includes a garment 150 and an exposure-tracking module 110 that cooperate to form a “smart garment” configured to track solar radiation exposure at one known location on the garment 150. The system 100 also includes an identification module integrated into the garment 150 and configured to communicate various data to the exposure-tracking module 110 when the exposure-tracking module 110 is connected to a port 124 on the garment 150”)
Applicant further argues: “Moreover, a compensation applied to the solar radiation data in Poutiatine does not compensate for electrical properties of the wearable article, but rather compensates for the amount of skin exposure due to the nature of the garment 150” Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection in view of Abraham et al. (US 10037672 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or compositions of matter. Claims 1-12 and 25 are machines (systems or devices)
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 24 and 25) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract ideas”:
An electronic module configured to be releasably mechanically connected to an interface of a wearable article, wherein the electronic module is configured to obtain wearable article size information from a memory of the wearable article (evaluation), and is further configured to a determine a compensation that should be performed to sensor data received from the wearable article to compensate for electrical properties of the wearable article using the wearable article size information. (evaluation)
Claim 1 (similarly 24 and 25) is directed to a series of steps for obtaining properties from a wearable article to perform a compensation, which is a judgment, compensation, based on sensor data and is grouped as simply using mathematics and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because an electronic element, a memory, a submodule and a server are merely generically recited computer element that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination an electronic element, a memory, a submodule and a server amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 24 and 25 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 24 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 introduces a submodule; see specification pages 23-24 discussing the generic submodules. Claim 8 introduces a server; see specification page 2 discussing the generic server. Submodules and servers’ amount to mere generic computer components to apply the instructions. Therefore, 2-12 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from the independent claim form which they depend as they do not add anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 14, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poutiatine et al. (US 20190076082 A1) in view of Abraham et al. (US 10037672 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Poutiatine discloses: A system comprising: circuitry; ([0023]; Poutiatine discloses the transmission of data between module which is seen as circuitry) a wearable article ([Figure 1]; (Garmet)) comprising: a sensor ([Figure 1]; Sensor 116); a memory configured to store wearable article size information ([0024]; ‘The identification module can also be loaded with a size of the garment 150 (e.g., small, medium, or large, etc.);” ; [0030]; “the exposure-tracking module 110 can include local memory… and to store incident solar radiation data and the identifier to memory.” Wherein the identifier contains garment size information); an interface for releasable mechanical connection to the circuitry ([0011]: “housing 112 configured to transiently attach to a port 124 on a garment 150” [0020] Further, Poutiatine recites a port that include a set of mechanical snap buttons configured to attach and detach, which is seen as mechanically connected. This port is configured to connect the housing to a garment which is seen as a wearable article ), wherein the interface is configured to permit the transfer of the wearable article size information from the memory to the circuitry connected to the interface ([0024]; ‘The identification module can also be loaded with a size of the garment 150 (e.g., small, medium, or large, etc.);” ; [0030]; “the exposure-tracking module 110 can include local memory… and to store incident solar radiation data and the identifier to memory.” Wherein the identifier contains garment size information), wherein the circuitry comprises: a first connection that connects to the memory of the wearable article when the circuitry is coupled to the wearable article via the interface; ([0030]; “In another implementation, the exposure-tracking module 110 can include local memory arranged in the housing 112 “ wherein the memory is located in the module and seen as connected) a second connection that connects to the sensor of the wearable article when the circuitry is coupled to the wearable article via the interface; ([Figure 1]; Poutiatine discloses a connection, as shown by the dotted line, connecting the sensor 116 and module 110) and a processor configured to read, via the first connection, the memory of the wearable article so as to obtain the wearable article size information determine,([0039]; “The software program can query the identification module of the garment 150 for the identifier and the identifier module can transmit the identifier through the port 124 of the garment 150 and the jack 114 coupled and the housing 112 to the controller 130 of the exposure-tracking module 110.” Wherein the identifier contains the garment size data and controller 130 is seen as the processor) a compensation that should be performed to sensor data received from the wearable article and obtain, via the second connection, sensor data from the sensor of the wearable article, and apply the determined compensation to the sensor data. ([0050] “Alternatively, the exposure-tracking module 110 can: record a first solar radiation value read from the ultraviolet sensor once the exposure-tracking module 110 enters an initial orientation window (e.g., defined by a 15° cone axially aligned with a target orientation); recalculate a second, tighter orientation window (e.g., defined by a 10° cone axially aligned with a target orientation); replace the first solar radiation value with a second solar radiation value read from the ultraviolet sensor once the exposure-tracking module 110 enters the second orientation window” ).
Poutiatine does not disclose: A compensation to electrical properties based on the wearable article size information
However, Abraham discloses: A compensation to electrical properties based on the wearable article size information ([Description (30)]; “In one aspect, at least a portion of the sensors 115 can be tension sensors (e.g., piezoelectric tension sensors, which are known in the art)” wherein sensor data via tension sensors is seen as electrical property data of the garment , [Summary (3)]; Abraham discloses sensor data being processed, which is seen as a compensation, based upon a size change parameter, which is seen as garment size data)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine with the sensor data compensation as disclosed by Abraham the motivation being to determine if the garment fits the user ([Summary (3)]).
Regarding claim 2, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to obtain, via the first connection, information relating to the wearable article from the memory of the wearable article([0029]; “the exposure-tracking module 110 can include local memory arranged in the housing 112; and a controller 130 arranged in the housing 112 and configured to sample the radiation sensor 116, to read an identifier from an identification module in a connected garment 150”) Poutiatine does not explicitly disclose: Obtaining electrical properties of the garment
However, Abraham further discloses: Obtaining electrical properties of the garment ([Description (30)] “at least a portion of the sensors 115 can be tension sensors (e.g., piezoelectric tension sensors, which are known in the art) configured to output to the processor” wherein piezoelectric tension sensor data is seen as electrical property data) and is further configured to determine, based on the wearable article size information ([Summary (5)]; size change parameter) and the information relative to the electrical properties ([(Description (30)]), the compensation that should be performed to the sensor data received from the wearable article to compensate for the electrical properties of the wearable article and is further configured to apply the determined compensation to the sensor data obtained, via the second connection, from the sensor of the wearable article. ([Summary (5)]; “determining, by the processor, based on the first sensor data, at least one size change parameter indicating at least one change in a size of the user. The method also can include, based on the at least one size change parameter indicating the at least one change in the size of the user, determining, by the processor, whether a size of the smart garment is not suitable for the smart garment to be worn by the user.” Wherein the processing of the sensor data is seen as performing a compensation)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the sensor data compensation as further disclosed by Abraham the motivation being to determine if the garment fits the user ([Summary (5)])
Regarding claim 4, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 2. Abraham further discloses: wherein the information relating to the electrical properties comprises calibration information obtained as a result of one or more testing functions performed on the wearable article. ([Description (77)]; Abraham discloses the use of logical functions, which are seen as test functions, to determine the fit of a garment on a user.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the test functions as further disclosed by Abraham the motivation being to determine if the garment fits the user ([Description (77)])
Regarding claim 5, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to write, via the first connection, information to the memory of the wearable article when the circuitry is connected to the interface of the wearable article. ([0030] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the storing of sensor to local memory while attached to a garment, which is seen as a wearable article, and [0034] Poutiatine discloses the sensor data is stored when the radiation sensor is sampled)
Regarding claim 6, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the processor is configured to configure, via the first connection, a data stream based on information obtained from the memory. ([0013] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the “communication of various data” obtained from memory via controller (130) and port (124) which is seen as configured to configure a data stream)
Regarding claim 7, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiaitine further discloses: wherein the circuitry comprises a plurality of subportions and wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable and/or disable at least one subportion based on information obtained, via the first connection, from the memory. ([Figure 1] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses a plurality of submodules such as, 116 and 130, and [0056] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the enabling of sensor (116), which is seen as a submodule, based on electronic properties gathered from the device, which is seen as retrieving from a memory)
Regarding claim 8, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a transceiver, the transceiver is configured to transmit information to a server and/or to receive information from the server, and the processor is configured to write, via the first connection, the information received from the server to the memory. ([0023]; “the identification module can be connected to each of a ground, power, and one data pin arranged in the port 124; when connected to the port 124 the exposure-tracking module 110 can ground the ground pin, supply power to the power pin, and transmit and receive data to and from the identification module over the data pin via I2C communication protocol. Upon receipt of a unique ID from the identification module, the exposure-tracking module 110 can pair solar radiation data collected during the current session with this unique ID and upload these data to a local computing device and/or to a remote server.”)
Regarding claim 10, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the processor is configured to perform a testing function on the wearable article and write, via the first connection, a result of the testing function to the memory of the wearable article. ([0061] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses a calibration which is seen as a testing function [0110] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the information may be stored in a suitable memory and because it is stored it is seen as written in the memory)
Regarding claim 11, Poutiatine discloses: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the processor is configured to write, via the first connection, usage information to the memory. ([0030] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the electric module capable of storing solar exposure data and identifier data, which is seen as usage data, and because the data is stored it is seen as written to memory)
Regarding claim 14, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the memory is further configured to store information relating to the electrical properties of the wearable article. ([0016]: “the identification module integrated into the garment 150 can store various garment- related data, such as garment (150) configuration… solar rejection properties” Solar rejection is related to the garments ability to absorb energy which is a dielectric property, which is seen as an electrical property)
Regarding claim 16, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the interface is further configured to permit the transfer of information between the biosensor and the circuitry via the second connection when the circuitry is connected to the interface. ([0019] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses a port 124, which is seen as an interface, on the garment configured to transmit data when the electronic module is engaged to the port 124.)
Regarding claim 22, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine further discloses: wherein the wearable article comprises a machine-readable code, wherein the machine-readable code encodes at least a portion of the information stored in the memory. ([0016] Specifically, Poutiatine discloses the use of a software package within system 100 which is seen as machine readable code)
Regarding claim 25, Poutine discloses: A method of operating circuitry, the method comprising: connecting the circuitry to an interface of a wearable article ;([0013] Poutiatine discloses electronic module 110 which is connected to a port 124, which is seen as an interface, of a garment, which is seen as a wearable article, wherein the module is seen as circuitry); connecting a first connection of the circuitry to a memory of the wearable article, when the circuitry is connected to the interface ; ([0030]; “In another implementation, the exposure-tracking module 110 can include local memory arranged in the housing 112 “ wherein the memory is located in the module and seen as connected) connecting a second connection of the circuitry to a sensor of the wearable article when the circuitry is connected to the interface; ([Figure 1]; Poutiatine discloses a connection, as shown by the dotted line, connecting the sensor 116 and module 110) reading, using a processor of the circuitry, wearable article size information from the memory of the wearable article via the first connection; ([0039]; “The software program can query the identification module of the garment 150 for the identifier and the identifier module can transmit the identifier through the port 124 of the garment 150 and the jack 114 coupled and the housing 112 to the controller 130 of the exposure-tracking module 110.” Wherein the identifier contains the garment size data and controller 130 is seen as the processor) determining, using a processor, a compensation that should be performed to sensor data received from the wearable article ([0050] “Alternatively, the exposure-tracking module 110 can: record a first solar radiation value read from the ultraviolet sensor once the exposure-tracking module 110 enters an initial orientation window (e.g., defined by a 15° cone axially aligned with a target orientation); recalculate a second, tighter orientation window (e.g., defined by a 10° cone axially aligned with a target orientation); replace the first solar radiation value with a second solar radiation value read from the ultraviolet sensor once the exposure-tracking module 110 enters the second orientation window” ); obtaining, using the processor, sensor data from the sensor of the wearable article via the second connection; and applying, using the processor, the determined compensation to the sensor data. ([0038]” Generally, the controller 130 executing the software program is configured: to access a type of the garment 150 based on the identifier of the garment 150; to estimate levels of solar radiation exposure on the user's skin based on the type of the garment 150 and levels of incident solar radiation (e.g., ultra-violet light, visible light, infrared light, etc.) detected by the exposure tracking radiation sensor 116 over time”).
Poutiatine does not explicitly disclose: A compensate for electrical properties of the wearable article based on the wearable article size information
However, Abraham discloses: A compensation to electrical properties based on the wearable article size information ([Description (30)]; “In one aspect, at least a portion of the sensors 115 can be tension sensors (e.g., piezoelectric tension sensors, which are known in the art)” wherein sensor data via tension sensors is seen as electrical property data of the garment , [Summary (3)]; Abraham discloses sensor data being processed, which is seen as a compensation, based upon a size change parameter, which is seen as garment size data)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine with the sensor data compensation as disclosed by Abraham the motivation being to determine if the garment fits the user ([Summary (3)])
Claim(s) 3, 9, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poutiatine in view of Abraham further in view of Kaib et al. (US 20170181703 A1) herein referred to as Kaib
Regarding claim 3, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 2. Poutiatine and Abraham do not explicitly disclose: wherein the information relating to the electrical properties identifies the impedance of one or more electrodes of the wearable article.
However, Kaib discloses: wherein the information relating to the electrical properties identifies the impedance of one or more electrodes of the wearable article. ([00195] Specifically, Kaib discloses a sensor that measure the impedance between the electrode and the skin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the sensing of electrode impedance as disclosed by Kaib the motivation being to determine the intimacy of contact between the electrode and the skin ([0195]).
Regarding claim 9, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine and Abraham do not explicitly disclose: further comprising wherein the first connection is a single-wire input-output interface for connection to the memory associated with the wearable article.
However, Kaib discloses: further comprising a single-wire input- output interface for connection to the memory associated with the wearable article. ([0114] Specifically, Kaib discloses the use of one wire technology to transmit data and can be connected to connection pod 130 [0119] Kaib discloses that the connection pod can be connected to monitoring component 170 [0141] Kaib discloses that 170 has a memory module [Figure 1] Kaib discloses 170 attached to garment 110, which is seen as a wearable article)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the one wire technology as disclosed by Kaib the motivation being to limit the power needed to operate the device ([0115]).
Regarding claim 12, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 11. Poutiatine does not explicitly disclose: wherein the circuitry is configured to increment, via the first connection, a counter in the memory when the circuitry is connected to the interface.
However, Kaib discloses: wherein the circuitry is configured to increment, via the first connection, a counter in the memory when the circuitry is connected to the interface. ([0103] Specifically, Kaib discloses keeping track of how many times a garment has been associated with an electronic module and would inherently count how many times the garment was attached which is seen as adding an increment to a counter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the method of tracking garment use as disclosed by Kaib the motivation being to compare data recorded with other garments ([0106]).
Regarding claim 17, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 1. Poutiatine does not explicitly disclose: wherein the memory is configured to store information relating to how many times the circuitry has been connected to the interface.
However, Kaib discloses: wherein the memory is configured to store information relating to how many times the circuitry has been connected to the interface. ([0103] Specifically, Kaib discloses keeping track of how many times a garment has been associated with an electronic module and storing it in module memory)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the method of tracking garment use as disclosed by Kaib motivation being to compare data recorded with other garments ([0106]).
Regarding claim 18, Poutiatine in view of Abraham further in view of Kaib disclose: The system as claimed in claim 17. Kaib further discloses: wherein the memory comprises a counter configured to be incremented each time the circuitry is connected to the interface. ([0103] Specifically, Kaib discloses keeping track of how many times a garment has been associated with an electronic module and storing it in module memory)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham further in view of Kaib with the method of tracking garment use as further disclosed by Kaib the motivation being to compare data recorded with other garments ([0106]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poutiatine in view of Abraham further in view of Gong et al. (US 20180250225 A1) herein referred to as “Gong”.
Regarding claim 15, Poutiatine in view of Abraham disclose: The system as claimed in claim 14. Poutiatine does not explicitly disclose: wherein the wearable article size information relating to the electrical properties identifies the impedance of one or more electrodes of the wearable article.
However, Gong discloses: wherein the wearable article size information relating to the electrical properties ([0033]; Gong discloses sensors that measure deformation; a change in size of garment, which is seen as wearable size data) identifies the impedance of one or more electrodes of the wearable article. ([0033]; Gong further discloses the use of deformation information to find impedance of the sensor, which is seen as an electrode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Poutiatine in view of Abraham with the impedance identification as disclosed by Gong the motivation being to help with the medical diagnostics ([0033]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CASEY GEORGE CHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/CASEY GEORGE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794