DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 1–2, the Applicant argues that Dean (US 2023/0165728) does not teach “the reference passive RFID moisture sensor [being] in an area of the wearable garment that is strictly separated from an area of the wearable garment subject to moisture.”
Applicant argues, “The sensor 325a is shown near the anterior/top region of the undergarment, aligned with strip 312. That region is outside the absorbent core 310, but Dean does not characterize it as a non-absorbent surface. Rather, reference number 312 is a structural garment layer/ strip, likely part of a waistband, fastening or mounting region, and critically, Dean does not state that region 312 is non-absorbent.”
The Examiner disagrees.
Paragraph [0081] teaches “nonabsorbent material 312.” Therefore, the sensor 325 that is on the front and outside of the diaper in Figure 3A, which is the same as the sensor 325a (mislabeled 325b) that is outside of the region of absorbent material 310 in Figure 3B is the “reference passive RFID moisture sensor” that is “in an area of the wearable garment that is strictly separated from an area of the wearable garment subject to moisture.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean (US 2023/0165728 A1, PCT Application Date March 4, 2020) in view of Heil et al. (US 2017/0065464 A1, Pub. Date March 9, 2017, herein Heil).
Regarding Claim 1, Dean teaches:
A system for detecting moisture in a wearable garment (The system determines whether there is moisture in an article [0006],[0024],[0028].) comprising:
a wearable garment including a main passive RFID moisture sensor, and a reference passive RFID moisture sensor (Absorbent article/undergarment 300 - "wearable garment" - has passive RFID sensor 325a - "main passive RFID moisture sensor" - which is disposed near absorbent material 310 [0085],[0087]. {Sensor 325a is incorrectly labeled 325b. There are two instances of 325b in Figure 3B. The one that is depicted over 310 should be Sensor 325a.} Undergarment 300 also has passive RFID sensor 325b - "reference passive RFID moisture sensor" - that is on the outer margin of nonabsorbent material 312.; see Fig 3B);
an RFID reader antenna that energizes the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors and receives corresponding main and reference signals that vary in the presence of moisture (IoT device 410 has an RFID reader 415 and an antenna 470 - "RFID reader antenna" - that communicates with RFID sensors 405 [0103]. IoT device 410 transmits a radio wave that energizes passive RFID sensors 405. Passive RFID sensors 405 then transmit a signal to RFID reader 415. That signal has an energy level/RSSI indicative of the presence of moisture [0094-0096].; see Fig 4A-D); and
a monitoring system that interprets the signals for a user (An analysis system 700 - "monitoring system" - receives the sensor data 705 from the IoT device 410 [0092],[0129]. Computing device 1600 has a display 1635 to provide visual output to a user [0189]; see Fig 4A-4D, 7 & 16), wherein
the main passive RFID moisture sensor is in and the reference passive RFID moisture sensor are in an area of the wearable garment strictly separated from an area of the wearable garment subject to moisture (Sensor 325a - "main passive RFID moisture sensor" - and sensor 325b - "reference passive RFID moisture sensor" - are in an area of undergarment 300 - "wearable garment" - are disposed on the liquid impermeable back sheet 315 seen in Figures 3A & 3B [0083]. The dotted lines of sensors 325a,b in Figure 3B indicate that they are on the outward facing or bottom side of back sheet 315. In Figure 3A, the sensor 325 in the front is on the outside of back sheet 315 [0083]. The sensors 325 on the back have dotted lines, showing that they are on the outside of back sheet 315 [0083]. Because they are on the outside of undergarment 300, they are separated from the inside which is subject to moisture.; see Fig 3A & 3B),
the reference passive RFID moisture sensor (RFID sensor 325b - "reference passive RFID moisture sensor" - is one that is on the outer margin of nonabsorbent material 312.; see Fig 3A,3B) is disposed in a region of the wearable garment isolated from fluid ingress (The Examiner is interpreting "fluid ingress" as the excretion of fluid by the patient or infant that is intended to make the inner surface, which is touching the patient's or infant's skin, wet.) so that its reference signal remains substantially unaffected by moisture exposure (Since sensor 325b is disposed on the exterior of the diaper over a place outside of absorbent material 310 and sensor 325b it is disposed on nonabsorbent material 312 it is disposed in a region of undergarment 300 that is "substantially unaffected" by the ingress of fluid, especially when compared to sensor 325a which is disposed on the exterior of the diaper over absorbent material 310. [0083], [0087].; see Fig 3A,3B),
Dean does not teach:
in the presence of moisture in the area of the wearable garment subject to moisture, the monitoring system compares the main and reference signals, and upon detection of a difference therebetween, interprets the difference as an indication that the wearable garment is wet.
However, Heil teaches:
The Examiner is combining Dean in view of Heil by implementing the comparison step of Heil using the system of Dean.
in the presence of moisture in the area of the wearable garment subject to moisture, the monitoring system compares the main and reference signals, and upon detection of a difference therebetween, interprets the difference as an indication that the wearable garment is wet (Moisture detection logic 4738 - "monitoring system" - in step 4820 determines whether the difference between the signals from sensor 4722 and 4724 exceed a threshold, and determines whether a moisture event has occurred or not in steps 4824 and 4822 [0148-0153]. The signal from sensor 4722 is the "main signal" and the signal from sensor 4724 is the "reference signal".; see Fig 47 & 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean in view of Heil by having in the presence of moisture in the area of the wearable garment subject to moisture, the monitoring system compares the main and reference signals, and upon detection of a difference therebetween, interprets the difference as an indication that the wearable garment is wet because it allows for the determination of whether a moisture event has occurred as taught by Heil [0153].
Regarding Claim 4, Dean teaches:
the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors are placed on an outer edge of the wearable garment (Sensors 325 are on the outside of back sheet 315 of garment 300.; see Figure 3A).
Regarding Claim 5, Dean teaches:
the monitoring system, upon determining the presence of moisture, sends a communication to a device alerting a device user to the presence of moisture (In step 855 in process 800 of Figure 8, an end user is provided a notification of the presence or absence of a moisture event [0148]. This is provided by the communications interface 1640 or display 1635 of computing device 1600 [0190].; see Fig 8 & 16).
Regarding Claim 6, Dean teaches:
the wearable garment is a diaper (Undergarment 300 is a diaper [0081].; see Fig 3A).
Regarding Claim 15, Dean does not teach the limitations.
However, Heil teaches:
in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares signal strength (Method 4800 compares the magnitude of the response signals received from the tags 4722 & 4724, such as the difference between their RSSIs.; see Figure 47 & 48 and [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean in view of Heil by having in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares signal strength because it allows for the detection of the presence or absence of a moisture event as taught by Heil [0153].
Regarding Claim 21, Dean teaches:
the RFID reader antenna is separated from the wearer's body by at least 20 cm (The antenna 470 of IoT device/reader 410 is at the foot of the bed and more than 20cm or ~8 inches away from sensor 405 the garment which would be at the groin of the patient lying down on the bed [0103].; see Fig 4B).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Rokhsaz et al. (US 2016/0267769 A1, Pub. Date September 15, 2016, herein Rokhsaz '769).
Regarding Claim 3, Dean and Heil do not teach the limitations.
However, Rokhsaz '769 teaches:
The Examiner is combining Dean and Heil in view of Rokhsaz by implementing the diaper sensor in Figure 43 of Rokhsaz as the sensors 325a and 325b of Figure 3 of Dean.
the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors are folded dipole antennas with an omnidirectional radiation pattern (The diaper sensor in Figure 43 is a folded dipole antenna.; see Fig 43 & [0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean and Heil in view of Rokhsaz by having the RFID moisture sensor is a folded dipole antenna with an omnidirectional radiation pattern because it allows increments of water that are added to the diaper to be detected very accurately as taught by Rokhsaz [0205].
Regarding Claim 16, Dean and Heil do not teach the limitations.
However, Rokhsaz teaches:
Rokhsaz in [0195] teaches that RFID antennas in the presence of water in a diaper produce asymmetrical patterns, while RFID antennas in dry diapers is more symmetrical.
The Examiner is combining Dean and Heil in view of Rokhsaz by using the teaching of Rokhsaz so that when there is no moisture present in garment 300 of Dean, the gain pattern symmetries efficiencies of signals from tags 325a & 325b received by transceiver/RF antenna are similar. And, when there is moisture present near sensor 325a of Dean, the gain pattern symmetry of sensor 325a is high compared to sensor 325b. For method 4800 of Heil, the gain pattern symmetry of Rokhsaz can be the tag response of Heil. The difference between the tag responses of Step 4816 can be the difference between the gain pattern asymmetry.
in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares symmetry in gain pattern (The difference between the tag responses, (i.e., the difference between the gain pattern symmetries) between the signal responses of tags 325a & 325b is the comparison between signal from 325a - "main signal" - and the signal from 325b - "reference signal".; see explanation above and [0214]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean and Heil in view of Rokhsaz by having in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares symmetry in gain pattern because it is a known technique that allows one to determine whether liquid is near a tag or not as taught by Rokhsaz [0195].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Brumm et al. (US 2005/0148978 A1, Pub Jul 7, 2005, herein Brumm).
Dean does not teach the limitations of the Claim.
However, Brumm teaches:
there are multiple wearable garments monitored by the single RFID reader antenna simultaneously (Reader 206 - "RFID reader antenna" - simultaneously monitors multiple disposable absorbent products (e.g., diapers) 202 - "multiple wearable garments" [0061-0068]. As seen in Figure 6, the tag 74 has a sensor 75 that monitors when the diaper 72 is holding waste 77 [0051,0075].; see Fig 6 & 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean in view of Brumm by having there are multiple wearable garments monitored by the single RFID reader antenna simultaneously because the identity of the tag allows the reader to send signals to instruct the cards to play certain media with particular voices and/or customized information as taught by Brumm [0061-0068].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Du (CN 107909136 A, Pub. Date April 13, 2018, herein Du).
Dean and Heil does not teach the limitations.
However, Du teaches:
Du teaches in [0004] that when an RFID tag is near liquid, the antenna radiation efficiency is seriously reduced, so as to cause the tag to fail to work or to work at a reduced reading distance.
The Examiner is combining Dean and Heil in view of Du by using the teaching of Du so that when there is no moisture present in the garment 300 of Dean, the radiation efficiencies of signals from tags 325a & 325b received by transceiver/RF antenna are similar. And, when there is moisture present in the garment 300 of Dean, the radiation efficiency of tag 325b is high compared to tag 325a. For method 4800 of Heil, the radiation efficiency of Du can be the tag response of Heil. The difference between the tag responses of Step 4816 can be the difference between the radiation efficiencies.
in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares radiation efficiency (The difference between the tag responses, (i.e., the difference between the radiation efficiencies) between the signal responses of tags 325a & 325b is the comparison between signal from 325a - "main signal" - and the signal from 325b - "reference signal".; see explanation above and [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean and Heil in view of Du by having in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares radiation efficiency because it is a known technique that allows one to determine whether liquid is near a tag or not as taught by Du [0004].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Love et al. (US Patent 11,173,074, Filing date March 6, 2018, herein Love).
Dean and Heil do not teach:
the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors are aligned in parallel orientation.
However, Love teaches:
In Figure 3B of Dean, even though sensors 325a and 325b appear to be perpendicular to each other, the detector portion of sensor 325 is just detector 335. Integrated circuit 330, transmission lines 340 and antenna 345 are the other parts of sensor 325 as taught in [0084] of Dean. With respect to sensor 325b of Figure 3B it is more important that its respective detector 335 be closer to the anterior/front, while with respect to sensor 325a of Figure 3B it is more important that its respective detector be closer to the intersection between the midline and line A. Whether the sensor as a whole is arranged parallel or perpendicular is not as important as the placement of the detector.
The Examiner is combining Dean and Heil in view of Love by placing sensors 325a and 325b as being parallel to each other in the same way that sensors 216a and 216b are parallel to each other, provided that the detectors 335 of the respective sensors stay in relatively the same places.
the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors are aligned in parallel orientation (Sensor 216a - "main passive RFID moisture sensor" and sensor 216b - "reference passive RFID moisture sensor" are parallel to each other [16:21-40].; see Fig 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean and Heil in view of Love by having the main and reference passive RFID moisture sensors are aligned in parallel orientation because one sensor is more likely to encounter exudated fluid before the other as taught by Love [16:21-40].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Rokhsaz and further in view of Iwai et al. (US 2020/0101889 A1, Pub. Date April 2, 2020, herein Iwai).
Dean, Heil and Rokhsaz do not teach the limitations.
However, Iwai teaches:
Iwai in [0265] teaches that water droplets reduce the output gain of an antenna.
The Examiner is combining Dean, Heil and Rokhsaz in view of Iwai by using the teaching of Iwai so that when there is no moisture present in the garment 300 of Dean, the gain reductions of signals from tags 325a & 325b received by transceiver/RF antenna are similar. And, when there is moisture present in the garment 300 of Dean, the gain reduction of tag 325a is high compared to tag 325b. For method 4800 of Heil, the gain reduction of Iwai can be the tag response of Heil. The difference between the tag responses of Step 4816 can be the difference between the gain reductions.
in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares gain reduction (The difference between the tag responses, (i.e., the difference between the gain reductions) between the signal responses of tags 325a & 325b is the comparison between signal from 325a - "main signal" - and the signal from 325b - "reference signal".; see explanation above and [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean, Heil and Rokhsaz in view of Iwai by having in comparing the main and reference signals, the monitoring system compares gain reduction because it is a known technique that allows one to determine whether liquid is near a tag or not as taught by Du [0265].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Heil and further in view of Forster (US 2023/0054777 A1, Provisional filing date December 28, 2019).
Dean and Heil do not teach the limitations.
However, Forster teaches:
the main passive RFID moisture sensor and the reference passive RFID moisture sensor are coated with a PET (polyethylene terephthalate) substrate (The substrate 208 of RFID device 200 may be constructed as a pair of PET films bonded together to prevent moisture ingress into the RFID strap 202 [0045].; see Fig 3A-3C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dean and Heil in view of Forster by having the main passive RFID moisture sensor and the reference passive RFID moisture sensor are coated with a PET (polyethylene terephthalate) substrate because it prevents moisture ingress into the RFID sensor as taught by Forster [0045].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 02/19/2026
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858