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 Claims 26-46 are currently pending with claims 40, 42-45 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. New art has been applied to remedy any deficiencies in the prior art of record.
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 26-27, 29-33, 36-39, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US Publication 2013/0338471 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Huang et al. US Patent 9,144,386 (hereinafter Huang ‘386).
Regarding claim 26, Huang discloses an article comprising a textile body (20 as per [0029]), a conductive region (11, 111) and an embossing material (30), the contour of the protrusion causes the conductive region to adopt and retain a raised, embossed profile in which a surface of the conductive region projects outwardly from a surface of the textile body (Figure 3, element 30 raises the conductive region 11). Embossing itself is ultimately considered a product by process type limitation and is only given patentable weight insofar as it affects the final product, see MPEP 2113 for additional guidance.
Huang is silent on a cavity on the bottom surface being aligned the protruding surface. Huang ‘386 teaches a similar ECG monitoring article that includes an embossing material including both a protrusion and a cavity on respective surfaces (Figure 3 at element 30 which includes a protrusion and a cavity), where the contour of the protrusion aligns with the contour of the cavity (Figure 3, at 30). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the protrusion/cavity as taught by Huang ‘386 in view of Huang in order to aid in preventing skidding (column 4 lines 29-41).
Regarding claim 27, Huang discloses that the embossing material is applied to a surface of the textile body (Figures 3-4 textile 20 and material 30).
Regarding claims 29-32, Huang discloses that the embossing material comprises an adhesive material that is waterproof and heat/pressure treated ([0028 which details silicone which is a heat treated adhesive material that solidifies).
Regarding claim 33, Huang discloses an embossing material such as silicone as mentioned above, but does not further disclose that it is specifically an ink. The Applicant however has explicitly disclosed that embossing inks were already well-known to the skilled artisan (page 4 lines 24-26 which details that “such inks are known for use in embossing materials”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the known embossing materials as admitted by the Applicant in lieu of the embossing material of Huang as predictable results would have ensued of biasing the textile electrodes towards tissue as is desirable in the art for better contact during use.
Regarding claim 36, Huang discloses that the conductive region comprises conductive yarn (11 as per [0037]).
Regarding claim 37, Huang discloses that the conductive region forms a connection region for forming a conductive connection with a further object (11 is an electrode for ECG sensing).
Regarding claim 38, Huang discloses that the conductive region forms an electrode arranged to measure or apply signals to a further object (11 is an electrode for ECG sensing).
Regarding claim 39, Huang discloses that the article comprises a plurality of embossed conductive regions (Figures 1-2, 4-6 which shows two embossed areas).
Regarding claim 46, Huang is silent on the material choice. Huang ‘386 teaches
that the embossing material is a thermoformable material (column 4 lines 47-51 which details polymers of propenoic acid which are considered a thermoformable material). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the material as detailed by Huang ‘386 in lieu of the material of Huang as they are considered interchangeable ([0028] of Huang details that any of the disclosed materials can serve as the projecting surface including cotton fabric which Huang ‘386 also details as being an option to propenoic acid based polymers).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Huang ‘386, in further view of Niemi et al. US Publication 2010/0324405 (hereinafter Niemi).
Regarding claim 28, Huang is silent on the claimed configuration. Niemi discloses the embossing material is applied to a surface of the textile body that opposes a surface on which the conductive region is located (conductive region found at elements 3-4, the embossing material at 5, with the textile 2 between them as per Figure 4). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the configuration of Niemi with layering of Huang as a simple rearrangement of parts. This compounded with a second textile 50 of Huang would not teach away nor render the combination/device inoperable.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Huang ‘386, and in further view of Nam et al. US Publication 2007/0038057 (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 34, Huang is silent on the specific material choice. Nam discloses an ECG sensing device that includes an embossing material with an adhesive material (103 which is an adhesive silicone film that is waterproof and can be cured with heat or a high moisture environment). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the adhesive material as taught by Nam with the device of Huang as predictable results would have ensued (utilizing a material that can serve as a filler for biasing the electrode towards tissue).
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Huang ‘386, in further view of Russell et al. US Publication 2009/0227856 (hereinafter Russell)
Regarding claim 35, Huang is silent on the material choice. Russell discloses an ECG monitoring device that includes an embossing material that comprises an embossing yarn (6 as per [0036] which mentions a woven material). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the adhesive material as taught by Russell with the device of Huang as predictable results would have ensued (utilizing a material that can serve as a filler for biasing the electrode towards tissue).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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