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 21-38 are currently pending. The IDS (04/27/2023) is considered, the previously struck reference has as well, all numbers were present.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 37 is 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 37 recites the limitation "the electrode or sensor" in line two. The term “device” is required to be included as that is how it was introduced in claim 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 21, 27-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipschutz et al. US Publication 2013/0046394 (hereinafter Lipschutz) in view of Longinotti-Buitoni et al. US Patent 8,948,839 (hereinafter Longinotti-Buitoni).
Regarding claim 21, Lipschutz discloses a conductive human interface comprising: a fabric layer having an interior surface and an exterior surface (103); a soft coating layer that overcoats at least a portion of the interior surface of the fabric layer (111); a conductive thread at least partially disposed within the soft coating layer (108), and an electrode or sensor device electrically connected to the conductive thread (106), but is silent on the shifting of the thread relative to the interior surface of the fabric layer in response to the stretching of the fabric layer
Longinotti-Buitoni wherein the conductive thread is configured to shift relative to the interior surface of the fabric layer in response to stretching of the fabric layer (column 16 lines 32-49 see also the shaping in Figures 31A-C). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the structural configuration of the above claimed components as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni with the device of Lipschutz in order to allow the conductive thread to stretch without incurring excessive strain and by extension preventing long term mechanical failure.
Regarding claim 27, Lipschutz is silent on the conductive thread having segments as claimed in a stretchable direction. Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a monitoring garment that includes a fabric layer that is stretchable in a stretchable direction (fabric within the garment at column 16 lines 32-49), and wherein the conductive thread has an extendable length portion with a first end, a second end spaced from the first end at a linear distance in the stretchable direction, and a length greater than the linear distance (column 16 lines 32-49 which details that the conductive ink pattern is stretchable along the same length), whereby the greater length enables the conductive thread to elongate in the stretchable direction when the fabric layer stretches in the stretchable direction (fully capable as they are made of similar materials). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the structural configuration of the above claimed components as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni with the device of Lipschutz in order to allow the conductive thread to stretch without incurring excessive strain and by extension preventing long term mechanical failure.
Regarding claim 28, Lipschutz is silent on the stretchable direction and extendable length. Longinotti-Buitoni teaches that the stretchable direction is a longitudinal direction in which the first end of the extendable length portion is a proximal portion of the fabric layer and the second end is a distal portion of the fabric layer (Figures 31A-B as well as column 16 lines 32-49 which detail a serpentine/zig-zag pattern for the conductive thread being stretchable in a longitudinal direction due to the geometry/shaping). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the structural configuration of the above claimed components as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni with the device of Lipschutz in order to allow the conductive thread to stretch without incurring excessive strain and by extension preventing long term mechanical failure.
Regarding claims 29-31, Lipschutz is silent on the stretchable direction and extendable length. Longinotti-Buitoni teaches that the extendable length portion of the conductive thread has first segments reaching toward the second end in orientations toward one side of the stretchable direction (Figures 31A-B and column 16 lines 32-49), and has second segments reaching toward the second end in orientations toward an opposite side of the stretchable direction in both zig-zag and serpentine patterns between segments (Figures 31A-B and column 16 lines 32-49). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the structural configuration of the above claimed components as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni with the device of Lipschutz in order to allow the conductive thread to stretch without incurring excessive strain and by extension preventing long term mechanical failure.
Regarding claims 32-35, Lipschutz is silent on the segment’s configuration. Longinotti-Buitoni teaches the shaping as mentioned above ( see contents of rejected claims 28-30), and the axis is inherent of the stretchable direction of the fabric layer with the conductive thread extending along it. The shaping shown in Figures 31A-C have segments above/below said imaginary axis. As mentioned above, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the structural configuration of the above claimed components as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni with the device of Lipschutz in order to allow the conductive thread to stretch without incurring excessive strain and by extension preventing long term mechanical failure.
Regarding Claim 36, Lipschutz discloses an electrical connector configured to connect with a prosthetic or other assistive device (element 116 which connects to prosthetic arm, see Figure 1), a sensor at least partially embedded in the soft coating and the conductive thread part of a conductive path electrically interconnecting the sensor with the electrical connector (as claim 1 only requires a single sensor, a second sensor also labeled 106 can be connected to its respective conductive pathway 108 which then leads to electrical connector 116, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 38, Lipschutz discloses that the electrode or sensor device extends through the soft coating layer for contact with a tissue surface (electrode 206 of Figure 7 which is shown to extend through the gel layer 111).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipschutz in view of Longinotti-Buitoni, and in further view of Wijisiriwardana US Publication 2007/0075324 (hereinafter Wijisiriwardana).
Regarding claims 22-24, Lipschutz discloses the interface of claim 21, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filaments include filaments that formed of electrically conductive material such as stainless steel. Wijisiriwardana teaches a sensing garment that includes a conductive thread formed of electrically conductive stainless steel filaments (Figure 1, [0033] describes a wearable system comprises conductive yarns that includes metal filaments, see also Figure 5, [0057]-[0058] which describes electrode regions are made of Xstatic yarns of a silver metallized nylon yarn of 70 denier and 34 filaments or composite yarns that forms Bekaert having approximately 80% polyester and 20% stainless steel, knitting is mentioned). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to modify Lipschutz with the teaching of Wijisiriwardana for the purpose of enhancing the performance of two-electrode system with electrodes tightening against the body promoting good electrical contact between skin and textile surface (Wijisiriwardana, [0053]).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipschutz in view of Longinotti-Buitoni, and in further view of Dong US Publication 2005/0288775 (hereinafter Dong).
Regarding claims 25-26, Lipschutz discloses the interface of claim 1, but Lipschutz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monofilament structure is a filament formed of stainless steel. Dong is in the field of developing a composite yarn that can be used in implantable prosthesis (abstract) and teaches a conductive thread that has a monofilament structure formed of stainless steel (Figure 1, [0036][0040], [0042] describes a yarn made from the metallic component such as stainless steel ([0042]) is a monofilament strand ([0040]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to modify Lipschutz with the teaching of Dong for the purpose of providing a yarn having an increased durability of prostheses, thereby reducing the need for physicians to routinely remove, repair and replace vascular prostheses that have been implanted ([0036]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipschutz in view of Longinotti-Buitoni, and in further view of Satharasinghe et al. US Publication 2016/0194792 (hereinafter Satharasinghe).
Regarding claim 37, Lipschutz discloses an electrode connector electrically connected to the electrode or sensor (112/114 which is electrically connected to the electrode/sensor), but is silent on an electrode patch formed by the conductive thread with multiple layers.
Satharasinghe teaches a conductive textile assembly that includes an electrode patch formed by the conductive thread (the cluster of conductive threads in Figure 13 near 830), wherein the electrode patch comprises multiple layers of the conductive thread (820 which h can be made with multiple conductive layers (Figure 3 with layers 32, which is sewn across three layers of the substrate). Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the additional layers of the conductive thread as taught by Satharasinghe with the device of Lipschutz in order to afford greater conductivity given the side by side layering of the conductive thread.
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