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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 02-27-2023. As directed, claims 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 26, 29, and 31 have been amended, claims 5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 21, 23, 25, and 30 have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 26-29, and 31 are currently pending examination.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, and 26, drawn to a wearable article including a stimulation system that includes an actuator controllable to deliver mechanical stimulus to a muscle of a wearer, and one or more electrodiagnostic sensors operable to sense muscle activity.
Group II, claims 27-29 and 31, drawn to a method of manufacturing a piezoelectric actuator comprising knitting one or more nanofiber yarns into a tubular or a part-tubular mesh to produce a piezoelectric tubular or part-tubular structure.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature, and thus there is no matter linking independent claims 1 and 27. Where Group I is directed to a wearable article including a stimulation device for the purpose of delivering a mechanical stimulus to a user by an actuator, Group II relates to a method of manufacturing a particular tubular or part-tubular piezoelectric mesh structure in order to provide a flexible piezoelectric actuator. Further, Group I solves the technical problem of treating/stimulating a wearer’s muscle, whereas Group II solves the technical problem of providing a nanofiber yarn-based piezoelectric actuator by manufacture. The two groups solve different technical problems, and do not include a shared special technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Michael Cronin on 12-10-2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, and 26. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 27-29 and 31 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9, 17-18, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 4, it is suggested that “a wearer” be replaced with “the wearer” as the limitation was already introduced in lines 2-3.
At claim 2, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “one or more of the electrodiagnostic sensors” be replaced with “one or more of the one or more diagnostic sensors” for consistency with claim 1.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “further” be added following “casing” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “the” be added before “one or more electrodiagnostic sensors” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1.
At claim 9, line 3, it is suggested that “further” be added following “casing” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 3, it is suggested that “the” be added before “one or more electrodiagnostic sensors” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1.
At claim 9, line 4, it is suggested that “further” be added following “casing” for clarity.
At claim 9, line 4, it is suggested that “a muscle of a wearer” be replaced with “the muscle of the wearer” as the limitations were each introduced in claim 1.
At claim 17, line 2, it is suggested that “further” be added following “system” for clarity.
At claim 17, line 3, it is suggested that “the first and second electrodes” be written as “the first electrode and the second electrode” for clarity.
At claim 18, line 2, it is suggested that “the strength” be replaced with “A strength” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 18, line 2, it is suggested that “the user” be replaced with “the wearer” for consistency with claim 1.
At claim 20, lines 1 and 4, it is suggested that “further” be added following “article”.
At claim 22, line 5, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before located to more clearly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 22, line 6, it is suggested that “garment” be replaced with “article” for consistency.
At claim 24, line 4, “a sleeve should be replaced with “a sleeve of the grown on sleeves” for clarity.
At claim 24, line 4, it is suggested that “so as” be replaced with “so as to be configured “ to more clearly avoid claiming the human organism.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 12 15, 17, 20, 24, and 26 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 claim 4, the phrase "optionally or preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional, and not required to reject the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by eliminating the phrase.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the piezoelectric actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is because claim 6 depends from claim 2, and the introduction of the piezoelectric actuator is in claim 3. Thus, it is unclear whether Applicant intends for claim 6 to depend from claim 3, or if Applicant should rewrite the claim to introduce “a piezoelectric actuator”.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that it depends from claim 3. Applicant may overcome the rejection by adopting the interpretation taken by the Examiner, and making the associated claim amendments to correct the claim dependency.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the tubular structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is because claim 6 depends from claim 2, and the introduction of the tubular structure is in claim 4. Thus, it is unclear whether Applicant intends for claim 6 to depend from claim 4, or if Applicant should rewrite the claim to introduce “a tubular structure”.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that it reads “a tubular structure”. Applicant may overcome the rejection by adopting the interpretation taken by the Examiner, or by correcting the claim dependency.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally or preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional, and not required to reject the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by eliminating the phrase.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "optionally " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional, and not required to reject the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by eliminating the phrase.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the thread holes" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This is because claim 15 depends from claim 8, and the introduction of the thread holes is in claim 12. Thus, it is unclear whether Applicant intends for claim 15 to depend from claim 12, or if Applicant should rewrite the claim to introduce “one or more thread holes” for the first time.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that it reads “one or more thread holes” at lines 3-4. Applicant may overcome the rejection by adopting the interpretation taken by the Examiner, or correcting the claim dependency.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "optionally or preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional, and not required to reject the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by eliminating the phrase.
Regarding claim 24, the phrases “optionally” and "optionally or preferably" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase will be interpreted as optional, and not required to reject the claim. Applicant may overcome the rejection by eliminating the phrases.
Regarding claim 26, line 1 recites that the claim is dependent on claim 23. Claim 23 has been cancelled previously. Thus, it is unclear from which previous claim that claim 26 is meant to depend from.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 24.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 19, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chahine (US 2020/0367823).
Regarding claim 1, Chahine discloses a stimulation system (see sensors/actuators 32, 34, 36, 38, 37, 41, and 43, and controller 40 carried on garment 10) for a wearable article (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-8 for wearable article 10; paragraph 43, lines 1-10 for the controller 40; paragraph 48, lines 18-30 for sensors/actuators acted on by controller 40; Figs. 1A-C), the stimulation system (see sensors/actuators 32, 34, 36, 38, 37, 41, and 43, and controller 40 carried on garment 10) comprising an actuator (36 and 38) controllable to deliver a mechanical stimulus to a muscle of a wearer (8) of the article (10) (paragraph 41, lines 1-7; paragraph 42, lines 1-13; paragraph 49, lines 1-9, note “vibration”, “pressure”, and “ stimulation” applied to wearer 8, which each read on the claimed “mechanical stimulation”), and one or more electrodiagnostic sensors (34 and 36) operable to sense muscle activity from the wearer (8) (paragraph 32, lines 1-7; paragraph 42, lines 1-7 and 10-14; Figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 2, Chahine discloses the stimulation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chahine further discloses wherein one or more of the one or more electrodiagnostic sensors (34 and 36) are electromyography sensors (36) (paragraph 42, lines 1-7; Figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 19, Chahine discloses a wearable article (10) (paragraph 31, lines 1-8 for wearable article 10; Fig. 1) comprising the stimulation system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, and note that the sensors/actuators 32, 34, 36, 38, 37, 41, and 43, and controller 40, regarded as the stimulation system, are carried on garment 10 per Figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 22, Chahine discloses the wearable article of claim 19, as discussed above.
Chahine further discloses a controller (40) operable to control the stimulation system (see sensors/actuators 32, 34, 36, 38, 37, 41, and 43, and controller 40 carried on garment 10) to deliver the mechanical stimulus to the muscle of the wearer (8) (paragraph 43, lines 1-10 for the controller 40; paragraph 48, lines 18-30 for sensors/actuators acted on by controller 40; paragraph 49, lines 1-9, note “vibration”, “pressure”, and “ stimulation” applied to wearer 8, which each read on the claimed “mechanical stimulation”; Figs. 1A-C), and wherein the wearable article (10) is shaped to be worn adjacent a selected muscle stimulation site (paragraph 31, lines 1-7 and Figs. 1A-C, where the garment 10 is shaped to be worn over the calf, which includes various muscles outlined at least at paragraph 42, lines 1-7), and the stimulation system (see sensors/actuators 32, 34, 36, 38, 37, 41, and 43, and controller 40 carried on garment 10) is located at a selected location on the wearable article (10) so as to deliver mechanical stimulation to the selected muscle stimulation site when the wearable article (10) is worn by the wearer (8) (paragraph 41, lines 1-25; paragraph 42, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 24, Chahine discloses the wearable article of claim 19, as discussed above.
Chahine further discloses wherein the wearable article (10) is a garment (paragraph 31, lines 1-2; Figs. 1A-C).
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.
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 3, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Getman (US 2020/0313066).
Regarding claim 3, Chahine discloses the stimulation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chahine fails to disclose wherein the actuator is a piezoelectric actuator.
However, Getman teaches piezoelectric fibers (24) (paragraph 78, lines 5-10) which include piezoelectric actuators (34) along their length (paragraph 86, lines 1-6), for providing mechanical stimulus to the user along the piezoelectric mesh (26) containing the piezoelectric fibers (24) (paragraph 99, lines 1-6; paragraph 115, lines 4-8) in response to various physiological measurements obtained including user’s movement (paragraph 107, lines 1-9, see “user movement”).
Given that Chahine discloses a garment incorporating fiber-based actuators for applying mechanical stimulation to the wearer based on measured physiological characteristics (paragraph 33, lines 1-3; paragraph 41, lines 1-7; paragraph 42, lines 1-13; paragraph 49, lines 1-9, note “vibration”, “pressure”, and “ stimulation” applied to wearer 8, which each read on the claimed “mechanical stimulation”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the actuator fibers of Chahine for the piezoelectric actuators carried on the fibers of Getman, as a reasonable alternative method for providing mechanical stimulation to the user.
Regarding claim 8, Chahine discloses the stimulation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chahine fails to disclose wherein the stimulation system comprise a casing enclosing the actuator.
However, Getman teaches piezoelectric fibers (24) (paragraph 78, lines 5-10) which include piezoelectric actuators (34) along their length (paragraph 86, lines 1-6), for providing mechanical stimulus to the user along the piezoelectric mesh (26) containing the piezoelectric fibers (24) (paragraph 99, lines 1-6; paragraph 115, lines 4-8) in response to various physiological measurements obtained including user’s movement (paragraph 107, lines 1-9, see “user movement”), wherein the actuators (34) are enclosed in a casing (68) (paragraph 91, lines 11-15, and note paragraph 80 which details that piezo structures 30 include actuators 34; Figs. 1 and 3).
Given that Chahine discloses a garment incorporating fiber-based actuators for applying mechanical stimulation to the wearer based on measured physiological characteristics (paragraph 33, lines 1-3; paragraph 41, lines 1-7; paragraph 42, lines 1-13; paragraph 49, lines 1-9, note “vibration”, “pressure”, and “ stimulation” applied to wearer 8, which each read on the claimed “mechanical stimulation”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the actuator fibers of Chahine for the piezoelectric actuators carried on the fibers of Getman, as a reasonable alternative method for providing mechanical stimulation to the user. It would have been rendered further obvious to provide the actuators of modified Chahine with a casing to enclose them, as further taught by Getman, in order to protect the interior components of the actuator.
Regarding claim 9, Chahine in view of Getman disclose the stimulation system of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine further discloses wherein the casing (Getman: 68) comprises an indentation region operable to indent a muscle of the wearer (Chahine: 8) (Getman: paragraph 91, lines 11-14, see “housing”, and see Fig. 3, where the housing 68 is operable to interface with a user; thus, it is understood given the shape and structure of housing 68, that when 68 interfaces with the wearer of the modified Chahine device, the region/surface of housing 68 that interfaces the wearer could reasonably indent the underlying muscle of the wearer by virtue of the interface).
Regarding claim 12, Chahine in view of Getman disclose the stimulation system of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine further discloses wherein the casing (Getman: 68) is at least partially ellipsoid (see Fig. 3 of Getman, where the illustrated cross-section of 68 is ellipsoid in nature).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823), as applied to claim 1 above and in light of the 112b rejections above, in view of Kim (KR 2012-0122402).
Regarding claim 4, Chahine discloses the stimulation system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chahine fails to disclose wherein the actuator comprises a structure formed of nanofiber mesh, and optionally or preferably, wherein the structure is at least one of: tubular or part-tubular.
However, Kim teaches a nanogenerator made from piezoelectric nanofiber mesh (see page 3 of the provided translation, “nanogenerator using the piezoelectric nanofiber web”), where Kim describes that the material of the nanogenerator is light and therefore easily portable (see page 2 of the provided translation, final 4 lines).
Therefore, 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 fibers of Chahine to be a nanogenerator formed from piezoelectric nanofiber mesh, as taught by Kim, in order to provide generation of the mechanical stimulation of Chahine via the piezoelectric effect using light and easily portable fibers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823) in view of Getman (US 2020/0313066), as applied to claim 3 above and in light of the 112b rejections above, in further view of Kim (US 2017/0331027).
Regarding claim 6, Chahine in view of Getman disclose the stimulation system of claim 3, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine fails to disclose wherein the piezoelectric actuator further comprises a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode is located on an inside of the tubular structure and the second electrode is located on an outside of the tubular structure; and optionally or preferably wherein the first electrode comprises a first electrode structure formed of conductive nanofiber mesh, and the second electrode comprises a second electrode structure formed of conductive nanofiber mesh, the first electrode structure being at least partially inside the second electrode structure and offset from the second electrode structure.
However, Kim teaches a piezoelectric fiber which includes a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (130), wherein the first electrode (110) is located on an inside of a tubular structure (120) and the second electrode (130) is located on an outside of the tubular structure (120) (paragraph 45, lines 1-7; Fig. 1, note that 120 is shaped as a tube), where the piezoelectric fiber is advantageously flexible (abstract, lines 1-5).
Given that Getman discloses that the piezoelectric actuator includes at least one electrode (see paragraphs 81-82, and paragraph 153, lines 1-5), 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 piezoelectric actuator of modified Chahine to include a piezoelectric fiber with a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode is located on an inside of a tubular structure and the second electrode is located on an outside of the tubular structure, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a suitable piezo structure with advantageous flexibility.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823) in view of Getman (US 2020/0313066), as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Ko (US 2020/0206074).
Regarding claim 15, Chahine in view of Getman disclose the stimulation system of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine fails to disclose wherein the casing is configured to clip around yarn to connect the casing to the wearable article; and/or wherein the casing is ellipsoidal with a flattened region and the thread holes are adjacent to the flattened region.
However, Ko teaches a casing (300) that includes openings (310) configured to clip around a wearable article (200) (paragraph 98, lines 1-4; Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 casing of modified Chahine to further include openings configured to clip around yarn and connect the casing to the Chahine wearable article, as taught by Ko, for anchoring and securing the actuator casing to the garment for use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823) in view of Getman (US 2020/0313066) and Kim (US 2017/0331027), as applied to claim 6 above and in light of the 112b rejections above, in further view of Hones, Jr. (US 2022/0252904).
Regarding claim 17, Chahine in view of Getman and Kim disclose the stimulation system of claim 6, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine fails to disclose wherein the stimulation system comprises one or more electrical connectors operable to connect the first and second electrodes to a power source.
However, Hones, Jr. teaches a series of electrodes (106A and 106B) provided with one or more electrical connectors (112A and 112B) operable to connect the first and second electrodes (106A and 106B) to a power source (122) (paragraph 57, lines 1-11).
Therefore, 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 system of modified Chahine to further include one or more electrical connectors operable to connect the first and second electrodes to a power source, as taught by Hones, Jr., in order to selectively provide the electrodes with power as needed during operation of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823) in view of Getman (US 2020/0313066), as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Park (KR 2017/0058633).
Regarding claim 18, Chahine in view of Getman disclose the stimulation system of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Chahine fails to disclose wherein the casing has a moveable part configured to increase the strength of the mechanical stimulus provided to the user.
However, Park teaches a moveable part (“piezoelectric ceramic vibrator”) disposed within a casing (310) (page 5, second paragraph of the provided translation; Figs. 2-3).
Given that each of Chahine and Getman describe the use of vibration as a mechanical stimulus (Chahine: paragraph 49, lines 1-9; Getman: paragraph 99, lines 1-7), and that each of these references also contemplates controlling the output of their actuators (Chahine: paragraph 48, lines 18-30; Getman: paragraph 104, lines 1-10), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention too have modified the actuators of modified Chahine held in cases (Getman: 68) to include a moveable part, as taught by Park, in order to provide mechanical stimulus via piezoelectric vibration, where, by virtue of controlling the actuator (Chahine: paragraph 48, lines 18-30; Getman: paragraph 104, lines 1-10), the moveable part is configured to increase the strength of the mechanical stimulus.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823), as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Baughman (US 2020/0208614).
Regarding claim 20, Chahine discloses the wearable article of claim 19, as discussed above.
Chahine fails to disclose wherein the article comprises a power source comprising one or more energy harvesting yarns and at least one capacitor operable to store electrical energy harvested by the one or more energy harvesting yarns, and, optionally or preferably wherein the article comprises two layers, and the energy harvesting yarns are located between the two layers.
However, Baughman teaches a power source comprising one or more energy harvesting yarns (“elastomeric twistron harvester”) and at least one capacitor (“supercapacitor yarns”) operable to store electrical energy harvested by the one or more energy harvesting yarns, where the yarns advantageously convert stretching and tension of the fibers into electrical energy absent a bias voltage (paragraph 8, lines 1-12; paragraph 129, lines 1-15; Figs. 9A-B).
Therefore, 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 wearable article of Chahine to incorporate a power source comprising one or more energy harvesting yarns and at least one capacitor operable to store electrical energy harvested by the one or more energy harvesting yarns, as taught by Baughman, as a way of harvesting electrical energy from the stretch and tensile strain of the textile yarns of the wearable article for use in the system without a bias voltage.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine (US 2020/0367823), as applied to claim 24 above and in light of the 112b rejections above, in view of Zealand (US 2021/0084997).
Regarding claim 26, Chahine discloses the wearable article of claim 24, as discussed above.
Chahine fails to disclose wherein the wearable article includes a first region having a first tension and a second region having a second tension, wherein the selected location is provided in the first region and the first tension is higher than the second tension.
However, Zealand teaches a wearable article (110) for supporting a wearer’s musculoskeletal system during exercise (paragraph 25, lines 1-3; paragraph 35, lines 1-8; Fig. 1), including a first region having a first tension and a second region having a second tension, wherein the selected location (104) is provided in the first region and the first tension is higher than the second tension (paragraph 39, lines 1-8, note emitters 116 that actuate portions of the wearable article in order to provide support, paragraph 55, lines 1-8, note that the emitters, configured as motors, create tension to support the musculature, Fig. 1, note that emitters 116 are not located in every portion of the garment; thus, the first region are taken to be actuated emitters 116 that create tension to support the muscles, whereas the second region is any portion of the garment that does not include emitters 116, and by virtue of increasing the tension to support the muscles, the first region has a first tension greater than the second tension of the second region).
Therefore, 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 article of Chahine to further include a first region having a first tension and a second region having a second tension, wherein the selected location is provided in the first region and the first tension is higher than the second tension, as taught by Zealand, in order to use tension to support the user’s muscular effort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE K. BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785