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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, drawn to a textile computing platform of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/5/25.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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(s) 1-14 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “at least one computing node positioned substantially within one of the textile nodal regions” is ambiguous. It is unclear how much the at least one computing node needs to be positioned within the one of the textile nodal regions to be “substantially” within one of the textile nodal regions. The claim is examined as meaning “at least one computing node positioned within one of the textile nodal regions.”
For claim 1, the claim language “a substantially real time basis” is ambiguous. It is unclear how real time the generation/feedback needs to be to be considered “substantially” real time. The claim is examined as “a real time basis.”
For claim 5, the claim language “auto-coach operations in substantial real-time” is ambiguous. It is unclear how real-time the auto-coach operations need to be to be considered “substantial” real-time. The claim is examined as meaning “auto-coach operations in real-time.”
For claim 7, the claim term “the plurality of computing nodes” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this term finding antecedence in “at least one computing node” recited in claim 1.
For claim 8, the claim term “the plurality of computing nodes” (line 1) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this term finding antecedence in “at least one computing node” recited in claim 1.
For claim 9, the claim term “a time-stamp” (line 8) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, already recites “a time-stamp.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same time-stamp or a different time-stamp are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 9, the claim term “a network time protocol signal” (line 8) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, already recites “a network time protocol signal.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same network time protocol signal or a different network time protocol signal are being referred to. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 11, the claim term “the present computing node” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 14, the claim term “at least one computing node” (line 1) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, already recites “at least one computing node.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same computing node or a different computing node is being referred to. The claim is examined under the latter interpretation.
For claim 14, the claim term “the node processor” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/222846 to Chahine in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0338293 to Pisharody et al. (hereinafter “Pisharody”).
For claim 1, Chahine discloses a textile computing platform (Abstract) comprising:
at least one textile (11) (Fig. 1C) (para [0022]) including a plurality of nodal regions for interfacing with one or more anatomical features of a user (see where reference numeral “9” points to in Fig. 1C), the respective nodal regions configured to be in communication with at least one nearby nodal region (para [0022]) (also see para [0024]);
at least one computing node (12) (Fig. 10) (para [0023]) (also see para [0023], which teaches that processing may occur at element 12) (also see para [0024], which teaches that element 12 can monitor the data) positioned substantially within one of the textile nodal regions (as can be seen in Fig. 1C), the at least one computing node including at least one sensory device (12) (Fig. 10) (para [0022]); and
a gateway device (Examiner’s Note: made up of the elements it includes) coupled to the plurality of textile nodal regions (para [0023]) (also see para [0024]-[0025]), the gateway device including:
a gateway processor (16) (Fig. 3) (para [0048]-[0049]); and
a memory (18) (Fig. 3) (para [0048]-[0049]) coupled to the gateway processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3) and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the gateway processor, configure the gateway processor (para [0048]-[0049]) to:
generate physiological analytics based on a series of sensory data records received from at least one computing node for the current textile system state (para [0058] and [0070]), the respective sensory data records associated with a time-stamp based on a network time protocol signal (para [0070]); and
transmit actuating signals to the one or more enumerated subset of computing nodes based on the physiological analytics for generating feedback to a user on a substantially real time basis (para [0024] and [0028]).
Chahine does not expressly disclose transmit, via a textile communication network, a discovery signal and a network time protocol signal; and receive node discovery data from one or more computing nodes to enumerate a subset of computing nodes for a current textile system state, and that the at least one computing node is the enumerated subset of computing nodes.
However, Pisharody teaches transmit, via a textile communication network, a discovery signal and a network time protocol signal (para [0061]-[0063]); and receive node discovery data from one or more computing nodes to enumerate a subset of computing nodes for a current textile system state (para [0061]-[0063]), and that the at least one computing node is the enumerated subset of computing nodes (para [0061]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chahine to include transmit, via a textile communication network, a discovery signal and a network time protocol signal; and receive node discovery data from one or more computing nodes to enumerate a subset of computing nodes for a current textile system state, and that the at least one computing node is the enumerated subset of computing nodes, in view of the teachings of Pisharody, for the obvious advantage of ensuring there is “no loss of data or node visibility at the cloud level” (see para [0063] of Pisharody).
For claim 2, Chahine further discloses wherein the enumerated subset of computing nodes include one or more actuating devices (para [0022]), and wherein the transmitted actuating signals are configured to generate a combination output at the one or more actuating devices (para [0024] and [0028]) (also see para [0022]).
For claim 3, Chahine, as modified, further discloses wherein the node discovery data includes data records identifying a sensor device type (para [0071], sensor type is identified and correlated based on a corresponding data model) and a sensor position relative to an anatomical feature of the user (para [0038]).
For claim 4, Chahine further discloses wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the gateway processor, configure the gateway processor to: determine a subset of physiological analytics that correspond to at least one of the identified sensor device type or a sensor position (para [0071]) (also see para [0064] and [0083], the sensor type corresponding to a respective data model, the data model being specific to the physiological analytic that corresponds to the sensor type), wherein the subset of physiological analytics is based on capabilities of sensory data records associated with the identified sensor device type or sensor position (para [0071]) (also see para [0064] and [0083], the sensor type corresponding to a respective data model, the data model being specific to the physiological analytic that corresponds to the sensor type) (moreover, see para [0048] for an example).
For claim 5, Chahine further, discloses wherein the physiological analytics includes at least one of gait analysis, biofeedback training, auto-coach operations in substantial real-time, gamification operations, health monitoring, or medical diagnosis operations (para [0084]).
For claim 6, Chahine further discloses wherein the series of sensory data records include at least one of inertial measurement unit data, temperature or heat flux data at a skin surface of the user, or electrical biosignals across a skin surface of the user (para [0052]).
For claim 7, Chahine further discloses wherein the plurality of computing nodes are positioned at positions across the anatomical features of the user for a defined physiological analytics type (as can be seen in Fig. 1C) (para [0022]).
For claim 8, Chahine further discloses wherein the plurality of computing nodes are positioned across at least one of a foot of the user, a position proximal to a knee of the user, or a position proximal upper leg or lower leg muscles of the user for generating gait analysis for the user (as can be seen in Fig. 1C) (para [0037]).
For claim 9, Chahine, as modified, further discloses wherein the at least one computing nodes respectively include: a node processor (Examiner’s Note: inherent, para [0023] teaching that “processing by the actuators 12,” and a processor being required/inherent for “processing” to occur) (also see para [0024], which teaches that element 12 can monitor the data); the at least one sensory-actuating device coupled to the node processor (para [0023]-[0024], element 12 performs the processing and is therefore connected to the processor); the node processor configured to: generate sensory data records based on the at least one sensory-actuating device (para [0058] and [0070]) and associating a time-stamp based on a received network time protocol signal (para [0070]); receive one or more actuating signals for generating sensory-actuating output for application across an anatomical feature of the user as a combination output of enumerated subset of computing nodes (para [0024] and [0028]).
Chahine does not expressly disclose a node memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that can be executed by the node processor.
However, Chahine teaches other computer/processor structures (16) that have a memory (18) coupled to a processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3) and storing processor-executable instructions that can be executed by the processor (para [0048] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Chahine to include a node memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that can be executed by the node processor, in view of the teachings of Chahine, because such a modification would just be duplicating the disclosed computer structures of other computational units in Chahine to the computational unit that is located at element 12 of Chahine. Chahine doesn’t disclose what the exact structure is at element 12 that performs it’s “processing,” but the processor/memory structure of other computational units disclosed in Chahine would be suitable processor/memory structures that can achieve the function(s) that Chahine’s element 12 wants to achieve in its disclosure.
For claim 10, Chahine further discloses wherein the at least one sensory-actuating device is configured to provide at least one of haptic output, heating or cooling output, electrical stimulation, or acoustic output across the anatomical feature of the user (para [0043]).
For claim 11, Chahine, as modified, further discloses wherein the node memory includes processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the node processor, configure the node processor to: generate physiological analytic portions based on the sensory data records generated at the present computing node (para [0071]) (also see para [0064] and [0083]) (moreover, see para [0048] for an example), the physiological analytic portions being subset analytics for generating physiological analytics based on a combination of computing nodes of the textile computing system (para [0071]) (also see para [0064] and [0083]) (moreover, see para [0048] for an example).
For claim 12, Chahine further discloses wherein the textile communication network includes a combination of a conductive fibers integral to the at least one textile (para [0047]) and wireless communication circuits for wireless communication (para [0084]-[0085]).
For claim 13, Chahine further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of nodal regions incudes a nodal receptacle (24) (Fig. 3) (para [0047])adapted to removably receive a discrete computing node therein (as can be seen in Fig. 3).
For claim 14, Chahine further discloses wherein at least one computing node includes a power source (28) coupled to the node processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3), and wherein the textile communication network is configured to transmit power to adjacent computing nodes associated with nearby nodal regions (para [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791