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 The prior 112 rejection has been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 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. See arguments below, however, it should be noted that the relative shifting of the conductive thread to the fabric layer only requires that some of the fabric layer shift at a different rate or different extent than that of the conductive threading, which the fabric layer .
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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the claimed subject matter of claim 37, specifically the multiple layers of thread that make up the electrode patch which interfaces with an electrode connector. Designs such as in Jeong US 2010/0185076 which includes one layer that then is terminated by an electrode connector. Shen US 2009/0277528 details a single conductive layer of fabric that spans multiple layers of other materials and serves the same function but is not multiple layers itself as Shen does not require it with the shaping of the top of the conductive fabric layer. Dias US 8,934,957 teaches utilizing higher stitch density or more general thread to effect a change in design but also does not detail multiple layers, where the multiple layers are considered distinct, and separate layers with no conductive stitching combining them into a single layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the shifting of the conductive thread, but are persuasive regarding claim 37, which has been allowed above.
The Applicant is arguing more narrowly than is presently claimed regarding the shifting of the conductive thread relative to the interior surface of the fabric layer. The fabric layer includes a much larger surface area than the conductive thread used in either of the prior art references above. This means that when a portion of the fabric layer (not near the conductive thread) stretches in either a garment (of Longinotti-Buitoni) or a socket for an arm prosthetic (of Lipschutz), the conductive thread will shift either by a much smaller rate or not at all. This of course depends on the proximity of the stretching along the same direction/axis along the fabric layer. If the fabric layer is stretched right at the location that the conductive thread is located, even with the serpentine shaping of Longinotti-Buitoni), they would shift the same amount at the same rate. The portion of the fabric layer that is stretched/moved determines whether or not the conductive thread moves at all. As long as the elongation/stretching is slightly different between some portion of the fabric layer (interior surface included) and the conductive thread, the limitation is considered met.
After review of Satharasinghe (initially with respect to claim 37), it appears that the serpentine pattern shown for the conductive thread meets what the Applicant had intended regarding claim 21, where only the nodes of the serpentine shape are anchored and the rest of the conductive thread are designed to shift with relation to the interior surface of the fabric layer as presently claimed.
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 Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights