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 .
Claim Status
The preliminary amendment submitted on December 29th, 2022 has been entered. Claims 1-21 have been amended and are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The present claims invoking 112(f) include the following:
Claim 1 and 3. “attachment means” invokes means with functional language attachment without further structure as to what structure is creating the attachment. As such the broadest reasonable interpretation is given utilizing the specification definition hook fasteners or adhesive-based attachment.
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 1, 3, 4, 6, 18, and 20-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 18, and 21 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first sensing zone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is being interpreted to mean a zone of the at least two sensing zones that is adjacent to the processing module.
All claims dependent upon rejected claims are herein also rejected under 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 12-14, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porthiyas et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/096413).
Regarding claim 4, Porthiyas discloses a strip element (10) configured to be externally (Page 5 last paragraph, attached to surface of wearable article) and removably (Page 4 last paragraph removably attachable to wearable hygiene article) provided to an absorbent hygiene article, such as a diaper (Page 5 5th paragraph such as a diaper), the strip element comprising at least two sensing elements (Fig. 2 elements 12a-12d) for obtaining excretion-related information in the absorbent hygiene article (Page 8 Paragraph 4 may measure the hygienic state of the article, for example, by measurement of wetness level of the article, presence of a particular chemical compound/composition and/or ph levels),
wherein the strip element comprises at least two sensing zones (zones of 12a-12d), each of which comprises one of two sensing elements (12a-12d, one in each zone),
the two sensing zones being separated by a deformation susceptibility (Page 8 last paragraph, flexible substrate 13, flexibility shows susceptibility to deformation) zone (area of 13 between the sensing zones that connects the two sensing zones (sensing zones connected by 13) and that is free of any sensing element (sensing elements only located at zones of 1a-12b, rest of 13 is sensing element free).
Porthiyas does not expressly disclose the deformation susceptibility zone having lower bending stiffness than the respectively adjacent sensing zones, however the sensing zones have elements 12a-12d placed in contact with them. Placing an additional material on top of the flexible substrate 13 just in the sensing zones would have the inherent effect of adding to the thickness of that area which would inherently increase that areas resistance to flexion simply by adding an additional element that increases thickness of the area at which the element is placed. As such the deformation susceptibility zones would inherently have lower bending stiffness than the respectively adjacent sensing zones.
Regarding claim 12, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 4. Porthiyas further discloses the strip element having a length (longitudinal length of strip 12) being defined as the maximum geometrical extension of the strip element (longest dimension of 12 is length), a thickness (thickness of substrate 13, see the smallest dimension perpendicular to the longest dimension of 13 as illustrated in Fig. 2) being defined as an extension of the strip element in direction perpendicular to the length direction, and a width being defined as an extension in a direction perpendicular to the length direction and the thickness direction, respectively, wherein the width of the strip element in the deformation susceptibility zone is not smaller than the width of the strip element in the sensing zones (see below illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 of Porthiyas)
PNG
media_image1.png
680
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 of Porthiyas
Regarding claim 13, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 12. Porthiyas further discloses the thickness of the strip element in the deformation susceptibility zone being not smaller than the thickness of the strip element in the sensing zones (see above illustrative diagram of Fig. 2, thickness constant across length).
Regarding claim 14, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 4. Porthiyas further discloses a sleeve (Page 11 paragraphs 5-6 and Page 12 Paragraph 1, electrode is a conductive silicone electrode, material of the conductive silicone electrode may be made conductive by including conducive filler material in the silicone, silicone acts as sleeve to conductive material that acts as sensing element) accommodating the at least two sensing elements (Page 12 Paragraph 1, conductive material filled into silicone and thus accommodated in silicone), the sleeve comprising silicone (Page 12 Paragraph 1 silicone)
Regarding claim 18, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 4. Porthiyas further discloses a processing module (Page 8 Paragraph 2, monitoring unit) configured to obtain measurement data from the two sensing elements (Page 8 Paragraph 2, receive information from the electrode panel 12)
Regarding claim 19, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 18. Porthiyas further discloses the processing module comprising a communication module configured to provide an external device with information associated with the measurement data (Page 8 Paragraph 3, transmitter transmits data to an external device).
Regarding claim 20, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 18. Porthiyas further discloses the processing module being arranged adjacent to the first sensing zone (Page 8 Paragraph 2 monitoring unit disposed in the housing 11, Fig. 2 housing adjacent to top sensing zone 12a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porthiyas et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/096413) in view of Thng et al (U.S. Publication 2016/0095527).
Regarding claim 1, Porthiyas discloses a strip element (10) configured to be externally (Page 5 last paragraph, attached to surface of wearable article) and removably (Page 4 last paragraph removably attachable to wearable hygiene article) provided to an absorbent hygiene article, such as a diaper (Page 5 5th paragraph such as a diaper), the strip element comprising at least two sensing elements (Fig. 2 elements 12a-12d) for obtaining excretion-related information in the absorbent hygiene article (Page 8 Paragraph 4 may measure the hygienic state of the article, for example, by measurement of wetness level of the article, presence of a particular chemical compound/composition and/or ph levels), wherein the strip element comprises at least two close contact sensing zones (zones of 12a-12d) for being removably attached to a garment facing surface of the absorbent hygiene article (Page 4 last paragraph removably attachable to wearable hygiene article), respectively, and each comprising one of the at least two sensing elements (10,12), and a flex (Page 9 Paragraph 4, flexible substrate 13) zone (area of substrate 13 between sensors 12a-d).
Porthiyas does not expressly disclose the details of how the device is attached to the garment outside of stating that it may comprise a mechanical fastening component, such as a hook material patch, that may removably attach to a corresponding loop material on the wearable hygiene article or vice versa, or a pressure sensitive adhesive, that may removably attach to a corresponding tape landing zone on the wearable hygiene article (Page 5 Paragraph 3) and therefore does not expressly disclose each close contact sensing zone comprising first attachment means for keeping the close contact sensing zone in contact with the absorbent hygiene article by a first attachment force, the two close contact sensing zones being separated by a flex zone which is either free of any attachment means or comprises second attachment means for establishing a second attachment force between the flex zone and the absorbent hygiene article, the second attachment force being a smaller force than the first attachment force.
However, Thng, in the same field of endeavor of attaching sensors to garments, teaches providing a strip element comprising at least two close contact sensing zones (Fig. 1b area of elements 110,150 and 120,160) for being removably attached to a garment facing surface of a garment (¶0043 removably mount the housing and remote electrode respectively to respective first and second mounting location on or within a garment such that electrodes are in contact with respective locations), respectively, and each comprising one of at least two sensing elements (elements 110 and 120), each close contact sensing zone comprising first attachment means (150 and 160) for keeping the close contact sensing zone in contact with the absorbent hygiene article by a first attachment force, the two close contact sensing zones being separated by a flex (flexible substrate) zone 140 which is free of any attachment means (free of elements 150 and 160 as seen in Fig. 1b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the strip element of Porthiyas to have included the mechanical attachment means only at the two close contact sensing zones for being removably attached to a garment facing surface of the absorbent hygiene article, respectively, for keeping the close contact sensing zone in contact with the absorbent hygiene article by a first attachment force, and keeping the flex zone free of any attachment means, as taught by Thng for the purpose of allowing for flexibility of placement such that the positioning of the sensors in relation to one another on the garment can be customized through the flexion of the flexible substrate to which the sensors are connected and once the positioning has been selected, maintain the sensors in place on the garment through the attachment means. This allows for use of the device on garments of different sizes while still maintaining appropriate placement of sensors for proper excretion detection.
Regarding claim 2, Porthiyas in view of Thng suggest the strip element of claim 1. Porthiyas in view of Thng further suggest no sensor being provided in the flex zone (attachment only provided at sensors, see above rejection, Porthiyas discloses space between sensors 12a-12d as seen in Fig. 2 with no sensors within those spaces).
Regarding claim 3, Porthiyas in view of Thng suggest the strip element of claim 1. Porthiyas further discloses the first attachment means being a mechanical (Page 5 Paragraph 3 mechanical fastening component).
Claim(s) 5-11, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porthiyas et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/096413) in view of Yuds et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0187189) as reliant upon priority filing date of provisional application NO. 62/952,828.
Regarding claim 5, Porthiyas discloses the strip element of claim 4. Porthiyas further discloses a printed circuit board (Page 9 Paragraph 1, electrode panel comprises a flex PCB, i.e. printed circuit board, panel having a flexible substrate 13 with electrically conductive tracts disposed thereon for electrically coupling to the conductive elastomer electrodes 12a-d), wherein the at least two sensing elements are provided with the printed circuit board (Page 9 Paragraph 1 electrically coupling to the conductive elastomer electrodes) so as to be arrange along a longitudinal direction (see length in above illustrative diagram of Fig. 2) of the printed circuit board (see illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 above) and the printed circuit board having a width direction (see illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 above) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Porthiyas does not expressly disclose the printed circuit board comprising, in the deformation susceptibility zone, a cutout extending at least partially in the width direction of the printed circuit board.
However, Yuds, in the same field of endeavor of flexible printed circuit boards, teaches providing cutouts, 316a and 316b, along the outer perimeter (¶0092 along the outer perimeter) for the purpose of providing an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary (¶0092 provides an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided cutouts in the PCB of Porthiyas between the sensing elements which provide increased rigidity due to addition of layered material as discussed in the above rejection of claim 4, as taught by Yuds, for the purpose of providing an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary (¶0092 provides an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary), placing the cutout between the sensing elements on an outer perimeter of the device would necessitate that the cutout extend at least partially in the width direction of the printed circuit board as the cutout extends into the PCB from an outer perimeter eliminating the PCB material in that space.
Regarding claim 6, Porthiyas discloses a strip element (10) configured to be externally (Page 5 last paragraph, attached to surface of wearable article) and removably (Page 4 last paragraph removably attachable to wearable hygiene article) provided to an absorbent hygiene article, such as a diaper (Page 5 5th paragraph such as a diaper), the strip element comprising at least two sensing elements (Fig. 2 elements 12a-12d) for obtaining excretion-related information in the absorbent hygiene article (Page 8 Paragraph 4 may measure the hygienic state of the article, for example, by measurement of wetness level of the article, presence of a particular chemical compound/composition and/or ph levels),
wherein the strip element comprises at least two sensing zones (zones of 12a-12d), each of which comprises one of two sensing elements (12a-12d, one in each zone),
the two sensing zones being separated by a deformation susceptibility (Page 8 last paragraph, flexible substrate 13, flexibility shows susceptibility to deformation) zone (area of 13 between the sensing zones that connects the two sensing zones (sensing zones connected by 13) and that is free of any sensing element (sensing elements only located at zones of 1a-12b, rest of 13 is sensing element free),
the strip element further comprising a printed circuit board (Page 9 Paragraph 1, electrode panel comprises a flex PCB, i.e. printed circuit board, panel having a flexible substrate 13 with electrically conductive tracts disposed thereon for electrically coupling to the conductive elastomer electrodes 12a-d), wherein the at least two sensing elements are provided with the printed circuit board (Page 9 Paragraph 1 electrically coupling to the conductive elastomer electrodes) so as to be arrange along a longitudinal direction (see length in above illustrative diagram of Fig. 2) of the printed circuit board (see illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 above) and the printed circuit board having a width direction (see illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 above) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Porthiyas does not expressly disclose the printed circuit board comprising, in the deformation susceptibility zone, a cutout extending at least partially in the width direction of the printed circuit board.
However, Yuds, in the same field of endeavor of flexible printed circuit boards, teaches providing cutouts, 316a and 316b, along the outer perimeter (¶0092 along the outer perimeter) for the purpose of providing an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary (¶0092 provides an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided cutouts in the PCB of Porthiyas between the sensing elements which provide increased rigidity due to addition of layered material as discussed in the above rejection of claim 4, as taught by Yuds, for the purpose of providing an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary (¶0092 provides an additional degree of flexibility of the PCB at locations between rigid system components to enable the PCB to flex as necessary), placing the cutout between the sensing elements on an outer perimeter of the device would necessitate that the cutout extend at least partially in the width direction of the printed circuit board as the cutout extends into the PCB from an outer perimeter eliminating the PCB material in that space.
Regarding claim 7, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas further discloses the printed circuit board in the deformation susceptibility zone having a constant thickness, the thickness direction of the printed circuit board being a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the printed circuit board and the width direction of the printed circuit board respectively (see illustrative diagram of Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas further discloses the printed circuit board having flexibility (Page 9 Paragraph 1 flex PCB panel having a flexible substrate).
Regarding claim 9, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas further discloses the printed circuit board comprising polyimide or polyethylene naphthalate (Page 9 Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 10, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas in view of Yuds do not expressly disclose the cutout being providing in the width direction of the printed circuit board only on one side of the printed circuit board.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the cutout to be on only one side with regard to the width direction since this claimed position of the cutout being only on one side does not change the cutouts’ ability to increase flexibility of the Printed Circuit board. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the cutout disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas in view of Yuds do not expressly disclose at least two cutouts, the at least two cutouts being provided in the deformation susceptibility zone, wherein the cutouts are, with respect to the width direction of the printed circuit board, arranged in respectively opposite portions of the printed circuit board.
However, regarding at least two cutouts, Yuds, in the same field of endeavor of printed circuit boards, teaches providing multiple cutouts 316a and 316b where necessary, and since it has been found that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided multiple cutouts as taught by Yuds, where needed as this simply constitutes a duplication of the cutout element. As applicant has provided no criticality as to the necessity of multiple cutouts, it is determined that the presence of multiple cutouts has no patentable significance. See MPEP 2144.04 Duplication of Parts.
Regarding the placement on opposite sides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the cutouts to be on opposite portions with regard to the width direction since this claimed position of the cutouts being on opposite portions does not change the cutouts’ ability to increase flexibility of the Printed Circuit board. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the cutout disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, Yuds has disclosed that cutouts placement are selected based on the specific number and layout of components in a particular embodiment and are not limited by shown placement positions (¶0092), so a reasonable expectation of success is present in the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 5. Porthiyas further discloses first to fourth sensing elements being provided with the printed circuit board (12a-12d) such that the strip element comprises first to fourth sensing zones arranged in a row in numerical order (12a-12d arranged in row in longitudinal direction in order), and wherein a deformation susceptibility zone is provided between respectively adjacent sensing zones (areas of 13 provided between each of 12a-12d see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 15. Porthiyas in view of Yuds do not expressly disclose a cutout in each of the deformation susceptibility zones, wherein the cutouts are, with respect to the width direction of the printed circuit board, provided on alternating sides of the printed circuit board.
However, regarding each zone having a cutout, Yuds, in the same field of endeavor of printed circuit boards, teaches providing multiple cutouts 316a and 316b where necessary (¶0092 placement selected), and since it has been found that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided multiple cutouts as taught by Yuds, where needed as this simply constitutes a duplication of the cutout element. As applicant has provided no criticality as to the necessity of multiple cutouts, it is determined that the presence of multiple cutouts has no patentable significance. See MPEP 2144.04 Duplication of Parts.
Regarding the placement on opposite sides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the cutouts to be on alternating sides with regard to the width direction since this claimed position of the cutouts being on alternating sides does not change the cutouts’ ability to increase flexibility of the Printed Circuit board. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the cutout disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, Yuds has disclosed that cutouts placement are selected based on the specific number and layout of components in a particular embodiment and are not limited by shown placement positions (¶0092), so a reasonable expectation of success is present in the prior art.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porthiyas et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/096413) in view of incorporated reference of Ahong et al. (WIPO Publication 2016/090492) and Yuds et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0187189) as reliant upon priority filing date of provisional application NO. 62/952,828.
Regarding claim 17, Porthiyas in view of Yuds suggests the strip element of claim 15. Porthiyas further discloses having a distance between the sensing elements but does not disclose specific measurements between the sensors such that it does not disclose 50-70 mm between centers of first and second sensing elements, 30-50 mm between second and third, or 60-80mm between third and fourth.
However, Ahong, incorporated by reference into the disclosure of Porthiyas (Page 8 Paragraph 3), in the same field of endeavor of sensing elements for diapers, teaches arranging electrodes such that they are placed in certain regions of the absorbent article to cover areas most prone to experiencing enuresis events (¶00198) based on distribution of the likelihood of enuresis events in different regions of the absorbent article (¶00199).
Thus, Ahong shows that the positioning of the electrodes and thus the spacing between each electrode can be adjusted to arrive at a configured placement that results in the most optimal coverage for detection of enuresis events.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the distance between centers to be 50-70 mm between centers of first and second sensing elements, 30-50 mm between second and third, or 60-80mm between third and fourth since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine experimentation and is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05. Ahong discloses the necessity to configured the placement of electrodes based on the size of the absorbent article and distribution of the likelihood of enuresis events in different regions of the absorbent article ¶00199 in order to provide the appropriate coverage for enuresis event detection ¶00198. As such finding the optimum or workable ranges for different sized wearable hygiene absorbent articles involves only routine experimentation and is not inventive.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porthiyas et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/096413) with incorporated reference of Ahong et al. (WIPO Publication 2016/090492) in view of Thng et al (U.S. Publication 2016/0095527).
Regarding claim 21, Porthiyas in view of Thng suggest the strip element of claim 1. Porthiyas further discloses including the strip element in a hygiene system (strip element and diaper Page 5 Paragraph 3 and 5 describe attachment of device to diaper) and an absorbent hygiene article such as a diaper (Page 5 Paragraph 5 wearable hygiene article is absorbent article such as a diaper), the strip element being removably attachable to a garment facing surface of the absorbent hygiene article (Page 5 Paragraph 3 removably attachable to a wearable hygiene article), wherein the hygiene system is configured such that no galvanic contact is establishable between any one of the at least two sensing elements and a liquid to be absorbed by the absorbent hygiene article (Page 8 paragraph 3 electrodes may include the operation disclosed in WO/2016/090492; ¶00200 electrodes 290a-290e formed of conductive material, flexible PCB 371 placed on the exterior of absorbent article such that electrodes of conductive material may be located in the vicinity of the exterior of absorbent article, measure the capacitance with the interior of absorbent article, thus electrodes measure capacitance of inside of absorbent article from exterior and are thus remote to the liquid present in the diaper and do not require galvanic contact).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tarler (U.S. Patent NO. 7,206,630) discloses sensor elements that have flexible connections for the purpose of flexibility of placement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER DANIEL SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/PETER DANIEL SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781