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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026. As directed by the amendment: Claims 21, 40, and 41 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claim 42 has been added. Thus, claims 21-42 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Amendments obviate the rejection of record.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong) and Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman).
Claim Objections
Claim 21, 40, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the textile enclosure…comprising electrical contacts” in lines 20-21 should be amended to recite “the textile enclosure…further comprising electrical contacts” because the textile enclosure was previously defined to comprise a cavity in line 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Textile enclosure” in line 19 of claim 1 and 11. The instant specification fails to provide structure as to what the “textile enclosure” may be, but describes “textile enclosure” to be a cavity that is knitted to the garment sleeve and receives the controller device and electrically and mechanically connects the controller to the sensors (Pages 21-22 of the instant specification). Examiner will interpret the “textile enclosure” as a cavity that receives the controller device. The textile enclosure is integrated into the garment.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 21, 40, and 41 has been amended to include the limitation, " correlate the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform ". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support on pages 16 of the instant specification for “determine hemodynamic data associated with the user based on bio signals generated by bio sensors of the sensor panels 230. The operations to determine hemodynamic data, such as blood pressure, may be based on pulse transit time (PTT) data received from the bio sensors. In some embodiments, the controller device may conduct operations to determine hemodynamic data based on a relationship or correlation between PTT data and blood pressure”. However, the specification does not provide support for both biosensor signals and ECG signals used to assess a cardiac condition based on a time delay. Specifically, while this sentence from the instant specification on page 16 suggests that hemodynamic data is determined but nothing relating to a cardiac heart condition, and does not make mention of use of ECG and biosensor signals. Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, "correlate the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce new matter.
Claim 42 has been newly added to include the limitation, " wherein correlating the signals to assess a health care condition of the user based on the time delay comprises calculating a pulse arrival time (PAT) or a pulse transit time (PTT) from a relative timing offset between a peak of the ECG signals and a peak of the biosensor signal". The limitation does not have support in the instant specification nor in the parent application.
The specification provides support on pages 16 of the instant specification for “determine hemodynamic data associated with the user based on bio signals generated by bio sensors of the sensor panels 230. The operations to determine hemodynamic data, such as blood pressure, may be based on pulse transit time (PTT) data received from the bio sensors. In some embodiments, the controller device may conduct operations to determine hemodynamic data based on a relationship or correlation between PTT data and blood pressure”. However, the specification does not provide support for calculating PAT or PTT from timing offset of ECG signals and biosensor signal. Applicant has not indicated where the disclosure provides adequate written description support for the instant claim limitation, " wherein correlating the signals to assess a health care condition of the user based on the time delay comprises calculating a pulse arrival time (PAT) or a pulse transit time (PTT) from a relative timing offset between a peak of the ECG signals and a peak of the biosensor signal”. Therefore, the new claim limitations introduce new matter.
Claims 21-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
Merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, leaving the industry to “complete an unfinished invention.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353
Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish possession. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a).
The written description requirement is not satisfied by merely outlining the goals or results one hopes to achieve with the invention. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a).
Claims 21, 40 and 41 fails to sufficiently describe the process both biosensor signal and ECG signal in combination for assessing cardiac based on a time delay fails to have sufficient written description. The mere statement and recitation of “correlate the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform” in claims 21, 40, and 41 and pages 16 of the instant specification discloses “determine hemodynamic data associated with the user based on bio signals generated by bio sensors of the sensor panels 230. The operations to determine hemodynamic data, such as blood pressure, may be based on pulse transit time (PTT) data received from the bio sensors. In some embodiments, the controller device may conduct operations to determine hemodynamic data based on a relationship or correlation between PTT data and blood pressure” fails to establish how the processing of both ECG and biosensor signal achieves the time delay. The instant specification provides insufficient detail to the calculations required to be done to the biosensor signals and ECG and all the steps in between to reach the conclusion of the time delay, and how this time delay is used to assess the cardiac health condition. It is further unknown what the cardiac health condition is composed of which diseases fall under these conditions. The instant specification lacks crucial steps, requiring a large leap in faith, to jump from ECG and bio signals combined to reach the end goal of assessing cardiac health condition. The instant specification fails to provide details as to how the time delay is used to assess the cardiac health condition. Therefore, claims 21-42 do not provide sufficient detail for having sufficient written description.
Claims 21, 40, and 41 fail to sufficiently describe the structure for “textile enclosure” to show possession of the claimed invention. The mere statement and recitation of “textile enclosure” in claims 21, 40, and 41 and pages 21-22 of the instant specification that the textile enclosure being a cavity that projects from the sleeve fails to provide structure for the textile enclosure, other than their mere description of their respective function. Regarding the textile enclosure, it is unknown how a defined cavity (which appears to the textile enclosure, thereby not being a structural component) can be projecting from the garment while also being a knitted textile material for receiving the controller. It is unclear what the structure that makes up the textile enclosure that allows it to shapeshift between the knitted garment sleave while also defining a cavity and projecting from the garment. Therefore, claims 21-41 do not provide sufficient detail for having sufficient written description of the structural components of “textile enclosure”.
Claims 21-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2163 (II)(2).
A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See MPEP 2163(III)(a)(ii).
The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species). See MPEP 2163(III)(a)(ii).
Claims 21, 40, and 41 fails to sufficiently describe the use of the time delay to assess any and all in enough detail for one skilled in the art to have possession of the broadly claimed genus. The term “cardiac health condition” is not used in the instant specification, the instant specification only defines the how the hemodynamic data is determined from PTT from biosensors (Page 16). Further, the instant specification fails to detail any and all “cardiac health condition” that is assessed from the ECG and biosensor signals used to determine PTT/time delay. The instant specification fails to disclose any embodiment/species, and therefore does not have a representative number of species to claim the genus, as instantly claimed. Therefore, claims 21-42 do not provide sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to have been in possession of the invention as broadly claimed.
Claim 26 fails to sufficiently describe the use of an accelerometer signal in for detecting an adverse health event to have sufficient written description. The mere statement and recitation of “wherein the controller device is configured to use accelerometer data to detect an adverse health event” in claim 26 and pages 12 of the instant specification discloses “identify a potentially adverse health event when the user's blood pressure drops by more than a threshold amount within a determined period of time (e.g., rapid drop in blood pressure)” fails to establish how the processing of accelerometer data is used to detect an adverse health event. The instant specification provides insufficient detail to the calculations required to be done to the accelerometer data and all the steps in between to reach the conclusion of an adverse health event. The instant specification lacks crucial steps, requiring a large leap in faith, to jump from accelerometer data to reach the end goal of determining an adverse health event. The instant specification fails to provide details as to what within the accelerometer data (e.g. peaks, intervals, or time delays) are looked at to determine adverse health event. Therefore, claims 26 do not provide sufficient detail for having sufficient written description.
Claim 28 fails to sufficiently describe the process BCG signal or ECG signal in for detecting an arrhythmia to have sufficient written description. The mere statement and recitation of “wherein the controller device detects arrhythmias based on signal data received from at least one of the ECG sensors or one or more BCG sensors” in claim 28 and pages 23 of the instant specification discloses “may estimate heart rate and detect arrhythmias based on bio signal data received from at least one of the ECG sensors, BCG sensors, PPG sensors, or other bio signal sensor types” fails to establish how the processing of ECG or biosensor signal achieves the arrythmia. The instant specification provides insufficient detail to the calculations required to be done to the biosensor signals or ECG and all the steps in between to reach the conclusion of an arrythmia. The instant specification lacks crucial steps, requiring a large leap in faith, to jump from ECG or bio signals combined to reach the end goal of determining an arrythmia. The instant specification fails to provide details as to what within the biosensor waveforms and ECG (e.g. peaks, intervals, or time delays) are looked at to determine arrythmia. Therefore, claims 28 do not provide sufficient detail for having sufficient written description.
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 21-42 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the ECG signals" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the biosensor signal" in lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the enclosure" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests to amend to recite “the textile enclosure”.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the health event" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the signals" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “textile enclosure” from claims 21, 40, and 41 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is unclear what the textile enclosure may be; specifically, how a defined cavity (which appears to the textile enclosure, thereby not being a structural component) can be projecting from the garment. It is unclear what is defining a cavity and projecting from the garment. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) 21-22, 27, 30-32, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong) and Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman).
Regarding claims 21, 40, and 41, Mrvaljevic teaches A smart garment for detecting physiological data/A method for detecting physiological data using a smart garment ([0031] “the controller 125 can be embedded within the athlete's clothing, such as a shirt 445a and pants 445b (collectively “clothing 445”).”), the smart garment comprising:
a garment configured to be worn on an upper body of a user (Fig. 4B);
a first garment portion having a primary sensor panel having a first sensor type, the first sensor type being an ECG sensor ([0032] “the controller 125 is operably coupled to electrocardiogram (ECG) sensors 423a, electromyography (EMG) sensors 423b, an orientation sensor 423c (FIG. 4A; e.g., a gyroscope), and an acceleration sensor 423d (FIG. 4A; e.g., an accelerometer) that are carried at various locations on the athlete's clothing 445.” Fig. 4B (Position LA 423A [ECG sensor]));
a second garment portion having a complementary sensor panel, the complementary sensor panel including a complementary ECG sensor and a biosensor of a second sensor type different from the first sensor type ([0032] “the controller 125 is operably coupled to electrocardiogram (ECG) sensors 423a, electromyography (EMG) sensors 423b, an orientation sensor 423c (FIG. 4A; e.g., a gyroscope), and an acceleration sensor 423d (FIG. 4A; e.g., an accelerometer) that are carried at various locations on the athlete's clothing 445.” Fig. 4B (Position RA 423A [ECG sensor] and 423B[EMG sensor]));
one or more conductive fibres configured to electrically interconnect the primary sensor panel, the complementary sensor panel, and the controller device ([0032] “The sensors 423 can be connected to the controller 125 using thin, resilient flexible wires (not shown) and/or conductive thread (not shown) woven into the clothing 445.”); and
wherein the garment comprises a textile enclosure comprising a cavity projecting from a body of the garment and configured to removably receive the controller device, the textile enclosure formed of an integrated knit structure and … configured to electrically and mechanically interconnect the controller device to the one or more conductive fibres ([0031] “the controller 125 can be inserted into a pocket 443 [textile enclosure that comprises a cavity, as pockets have holes/cavity] in the user's clothing and/or attached using Velcro, snap, snap-fit buttons, zippers, etc. In some embodiments, the controller 125 can be removable from the clothing 445, such as for charging the controller 125.” [0032] “The sensors 423 can be connected to the controller 125 using thin, resilient flexible wires (not shown) and/or conductive thread (not shown) woven into the clothing 445.” Mrvaljevic further teaches in [0031] that the controller 125 is removeable, which means that the controller must be mechanically connected (physical connected to the wires) attached via knitting on the garment [formed integrated knit structure because a pocket in the clothing must be knitted to create the pocket], while also electrically connected to the sensors vis the wires. The phrase “integrated knit structure” does not have a defined structure associated with the phrase and is interpreted as any type of kntting.).
Mrvaljevic does not teach correlating the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform. Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable garment with ECG, BCG and PPG sensors configured to worn by an individual (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches a controller device configured receive the ECG signals and the biosensor signal as multi-modal physiological data inputs ([0058] “an ECG can be obtained as well as a PPG. The ECG tells when a heartbeat takes place, while the PPG on each bicep shows how long does it take for the surge of blood to travel from the heart to the respective bicep, i.e. the pulse-transit-time to the bicep.’);
correlate the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform ([0058] “an ECG can be obtained as well as a PPG. The ECG tells when a heartbeat takes place, while the PPG on each bicep shows how long does it take for the surge of blood to travel from the heart to the respective bicep, i.e. the pulse-transit-time to the bicep.” [0059] “Anomalies [cardiac health condition] in the left and right main arteries of the upper body may be monitored by observing the difference between the left and right pulse-transit-times.”) to monitor health events at different parts of the body ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the correlating the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform of Wong, because such a modification would allow to monitor health events at different parts of the body.
Although Mrvaljevic teaches textile enclosure comprising…electrical contacts configured to electrically and mechanically interconnect the controller device to the one or more conductive fibres. Jayaraman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a smart garment containing a controller and electrical leads to connect to the rest of the garment (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches textile enclosure comprising…electrical contacts configured to electrically and mechanically interconnect the controller device to the one or more conductive fibres (Fig. 6 (electrical leads 216
[conductive contact regions] with lead paths 212) Col. 7 lines 22-27 "The aperture of FIG. 2 also exposes
to the controller a magnetic engagement corresponding with a magnetic engagement of the controller.
When the controller of FIG. 2 is engaged with the top housing of the smart hub, the contacts of the
controller may mate with the electrical leads of the smart hub and a magnetic engagement provides
additional stability and engagement between the smart hub and the controller." Col. 3 lines 1-4 "Wired
networks may be implemented as one or more conductive paths from at least one the sensors of the
smart garment to the smart hub implemented through conductive fibers woven or knitted into the
smart garment") to repeatedly wash or clean the garment without damaging the controller (Col. 7 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the textile enclosure comprising…electrical contacts configured to electrically and mechanically interconnect the controller device to the one or more conductive fibres of Jayaraman, because such a modification would allow to repeatedly wash or clean the garment without damaging the controller.
Regarding claim 22, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach an ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT. Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable garment with ECG, BCG and PPG sensors configured to worn by an individual (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to use data collected by the ECG sensors and at least one of a BCG sensor and/or a PPG sensor to determine at least one of: pulse arrival time (PAT), the preejection period (PEP), ventricular electromechanical delay (VEMD), and/or pulse transit time (PTT) ([0058] “The ECG tells when a heartbeat takes place, while the PPG on each bicep shows how long does it take for the surge of blood to travel from the heart to the respective bicep, i.e. the pulse-transit-time to the bicep.”) to monitor health events at different parts of the body ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT of Wong, because such a modification would allow to monitor health events at different parts of the body.
Regarding claim 27, Mrvaljevic teaches wherein the enclosure is disposed on the garment, the enclosure having moisture resistant properties relative to the controller when the controller is received by the enclosure ([0030] “the controller 125 can be packaged in a water-resistant, resilient housing 442 having a small form factor.”).
Regarding claim 30, Mrvaljevic teaches wherein the primary sensor panel and the complementary sensor panel are affixed to a user facing side of the garment ([0033] “The fit of the clothing can be selected to be sufficiently tight to provide continuous skin contact with the individual sensors 423a and 423b, allowing for accurate readings, while still maintaining a high-level of comfort, comparable to that of traditional compression fit shirts, pants, and similar clothing.”).
Regarding claim 31, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach an ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT. Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable garment with ECG, BCG and PPG sensors configured to worn by an individual (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein biosensor is a ballistocardiogram (BCG) sensor (Abstract “The sleeves of the tee-shirt having an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor, a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor or a ballistocardiogram (BCG) sensor for monitoring the pulse of a person wearing the tee-shirt.” [0074] “In another embodiment of the invention, a ballistocardiogram (BCG) sensor is placed on the clothing in place of the ECG. Alternatively the BCG sensor is placed in addition to the ECG.”) to monitor health events at different parts of the body ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT of Wong, because such a modification would allow to monitor health events at different parts of the body.
Regarding claim 32, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach an ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT. Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable garment with ECG, BCG and PPG sensors configured to worn by an individual (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the biosensor is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor ([0045] “The tee-shirt 100 has two short sleeves 101.” [0055] “FIG. 2 shows another embodiment 200 of the invention wherein, instead of the ECG, the device placed in the band in the sleeve 101 of the tee-shirt is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor 203.”) to monitor health events at different parts of the body ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Kruger, with the ECG and a BCG/PPG for PTT of Wong, because such a modification would allow to monitor health events at different parts of the body.
Regarding claim 39, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach an enclosure for mechanically interconnects the controller to the garment. Jayaraman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a smart garment containing a controller and electrical leads to connect to the rest of the garment (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the enclosure for receiving the controller device projects from the garment, the enclosure configured to electrically interconnect the controller device, the primary sensor panel, and the complementary sensor panel using the one or more conductive fibres (Col. 5 lines 16-22 “The top housing (202) [enclosure that is projected out of the garment] of the smart hub (102) of FIG. 2 is configured for physical engagement with a controller (104). That is, the top housing (202) of the smart hub of FIG. 2 is shaped such that the controller is secured [mechanically] within the smart hub with sufficient stability from physical interaction to make electrical contact with one or more electrical leads of the smart hub as discussed in more detail below.” Col. 3 lines 1-4 “Wired networks may be implemented as one or more conductive paths from at least one the sensors of the smart garment to the smart hub implemented through conductive fibers woven or knitted into the smart garment”) to repeatedly wash or clean the garment without damaging the controller (Col. 7 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the enclosure for mechanically interconnects the controller to the garment of Jayaraman, because such a modification would allow to repeatedly wash or clean the garment without damaging the controller.
Regarding claim 42, Mrvaljevic does not teach correlating the signals to assess a health care condition of the user based on the time delay comprises calculating a pulse arrival time (PAT) or a pulse transit time (PTT) from a relative timing offset between a peak of the ECG signals and a peak of the biosensor signal. Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a Wong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable garment with ECG, BCG and PPG sensors configured to worn by an individual (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein correlating the signals to assess a health care condition of the user based on the time delay comprises calculating a pulse arrival time (PAT) or a pulse transit time (PTT) from a relative timing offset between a peak of the ECG signals and a peak of the biosensor signal ([0058] “an ECG can be obtained as well as a PPG. The ECG tells when a heartbeat takes place, while the PPG on each bicep shows how long does it take for the surge of blood to travel from the heart to the respective bicep, i.e. the pulse-transit-time to the bicep.” [0059] “Anomalies [cardiac health condition] in the left and right main arteries of the upper body may be monitored by observing the difference between the left and right pulse-transit-times.”) to monitor health events at different parts of the body ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the correlating the biosensor signal and ECG signals to assess a cardiac health condition of the user based on a time delay between an ECG waveform and a distal arterial waveform of Wong, because such a modification would allow to monitor health events at different parts of the body.
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Wang et al. (US 20180146922) (Hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 24, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an acceleration signal and ECG used in combination to detect arrhythmia. Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a worn garment containing electrodes and accelerometers for collecting ECG and acceleration data (Abstract), and further teaches further comprising an accelerometer for detecting user movement and/or position (Fig. 5B(560)) to provide adequate treatment for the condition based on more accurate results ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the acceleration signal and ECG used in combination to detect arrhythmia of Wang, because such a modification would allow to provide adequate treatment for the condition based on more accurate results.
Regarding claim 26, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event. Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a worn garment containing electrodes and accelerometers for collecting ECG and acceleration data (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to use accelerometer data to detect an adverse health event (Fig. 5B 566) to provide adequate treatment for the condition based on more accurate results ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic, with the acceleration signal and ECG used in combination to detect arrhythmia of Wang, because such a modification would allow to provide adequate treatment for the condition based on more accurate results.
Claim(s) 24-26, 28, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Kruger et al. (US 20180311530) (Hereinafter Kruger).
Regarding claim 24, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensors on at different locations of the body of an athlete on a compression shirt (Abstract and Fig. 6), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches further comprising an accelerometer for detecting user movement and/or position ([0029] “200 sensors to calculate the specific 300 movement and 600 performance of an end user, to 805 predict the trajectory of an object. These 200 sensors include from 201 surface electromyography, also referred by SEMG sensors, 201 Electrocardiogram, also referred to by EKG, and 202 Inertial Measurement Units, also referred by IMU sensors, which are a combination of two or more of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and barometers.”) to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event of Kruger, because such a modification would allow to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate.
Regarding claim 25, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensors on at different locations of the body of an athlete on a compression shirt (Abstract and Fig. 6), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the primary sensor panel includes the accelerometer (Fig. 6 (202) where the microcontroller 202 includes IMU’s which is an accelerometer. Examiner notes that the electrodes and accelerometers are on a side of the sleeve ([0025] and [0029]).) to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event of Kruger, because such a modification would allow to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate.
Regarding claim 26, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensors on at different locations of the body of an athlete on a compression shirt (Abstract and Fig. 6), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to use accelerometer data to detect an adverse health event ([0039] “This data is used primarily for monitoring the heart rate of the user. Other analytics include the estimated respiration rate and monitor abnormalities. These abnormalities include heart attacks, a murmur, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, fainting, and other abnormalities. Even though the process searches for key signs in the abnormalities, the main purpose to monitor the heart rate through the ergonomic or athletic motion.”) to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the accelerometer for detecting movement in the primary sensor panel to detect adverse health event of Kruger, because such a modification would allow to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate.
Regarding claim 28, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an controller device detects arrhythmias based on signal data received from at least one of the ECG sensors or one or more BCG sensors. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensors on at different locations of the body of an athlete on a compression shirt (Abstract and Fig. 6), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the controller device detects arrhythmias based on signal data received from at least one of the ECG sensors or one or more BCG sensors ([0039] “This data is used primarily for monitoring the heart rate of the user. Other analytics include the estimated respiration rate and monitor abnormalities. These abnormalities include heart attacks, a murmur, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, fainting, and other abnormalities. Even though the process searches for key signs in the abnormalities, the main purpose to monitor the heart rate through the ergonomic or athletic motion.” The heart rate is obtained from electrodes for collecting ECG.) to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the controller device detects arrhythmias based on signal data received from at least one of the ECG sensors or one or more BCG sensors of Kruger, because such a modification would allow to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate.
Regarding claim 34, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic does not teach an health event as an adverse health event is one of arrythmia, fainting, heart attack, and/or stroke. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor, teaches sensors on at different locations of the body of an athlete on a compression shirt (Abstract and Fig. 6), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the health event as an adverse health event is one of arrythmia, fainting, heart attack, and/or stroke ([0039] “This data is used primarily for monitoring the heart rate of the user. Other analytics include the estimated respiration rate and monitor abnormalities. These abnormalities include heart attacks, a murmur, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, fainting, and other abnormalities. Even though the process searches for key signs in the abnormalities, the main purpose to monitor the heart rate through the ergonomic or athletic motion.”) to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the health event as an adverse health event is one of arrythmia, fainting, heart attack, and/or stroke of Kruger, because such a modification would allow to accurately correlate the motion with the heart rate.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Proenca et al. (US 20210038095) (Hereinafter Proenca).
Regarding claim 23, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang and do not teach the determination of blood pressure based on the determined PTT. Proenca, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wearable support to be worn by a user that includes a PPG sensor and electrodes for measuring ECG (Abstract and [0009]), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to determine blood pressure for the user based on one or more of determined PAT, PEP, VEMD, and/or PTT ([0018] “determining a pulse transit time (PTT) value from the determined PEP value and the determined PAT value; and determining a blood pressure (BP) value from the determined PTT value.”) to more advantageously determine blood pressure from 2 locations ([0019]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the determination of blood pressure based on the determined PTT of Proenca, because such a modification would allow to more advantageously determine blood pressure from 2 locations.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of and Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Bogdanovich et al. (US 20190046114) (Hereinafter Bogdanovich).
Regarding claim 29, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach a controller for determining a user is asleep as a function of heart rate of a user. Bogdanovich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a garment containing sensors for determining respiration, heart properties, and motion sensing (Abstract), similar to the device of Mrvaljevic, and further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to determine that the user is asleep as a function of user heart rate ([0096] “Their heart rates dip more at night during sleep than their lower-performing counterparts, and they hit harder with a more robust “engage threat” response when called upon.”) to determine the state of a user ([0095]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the determining a user is asleep as a function of heart rate of a user of Bogdanovich, because such a modification would allow to determine the state of a user. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Etemadi et al. (“Wearable ballistocardiogram and seismocardiogram systems for health and performance” J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Feb 1; 124(2): 452–461. Published online 2017 Aug 10) (Hereinafter Etemadi).
Regarding claim 33, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang teaches the ECG and BCG sensors placed together ([0074] but does not teach the estimation of a hemodynamic metrics based on the combination of ECG and BCG. Etemadi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wearable patch that measure BCG, PPG, and ECG data (Pg. 2 lines 16-17 and line 26). Although the device is not a wearable garment, both Mrvaljevic and Etemadi are skin worn devices that require obtaining physiological data from a user. Etemadi further teaches wherein the controller device is configured to estimate hemodynamic metrics based on a combination of ECG sensor data and BCG sensor data (Pg. 7 lines 11-12 “We found that a BCG-derived time interval—the delay from the R wave [metric] of the ECG to the J wave [metric] of the BCG—was strongly correlated to PEP with near-unity slope [metric]” Examiner notes that R and J waves are metrics used to determine PEP.) to correlate changes in contractility (Pg. 7 line 6). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the estimation of a hemodynamic metrics based on the combination of ECG and BCG of Etemadi, because such a modification would allow to correlate changes in contractility.
Claim(s) 35 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Chahine et al. (US 20170079348) (Hereinafter Chahine).
Regarding claim 35, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach conductive fibres knitted along with a base fabric of the garment. Chahine, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches electrically conductive threads on fabrics that can be applied to monitor body signal (Abstract and [0001]-[0003]), and further teaches wherein the one or more conductive fibres are knit along with a base fabric in a layer of the garment ([0040] “In this example, three-dimensional conductive knit patch 2 consists of a base fabric (e.g. surface) 10 as a first portion integrally formed (e.g. knit) with a conductive fabric (e.g. group of conductive fibres) 8 as a second portion of a single layer 11 (see also FIG. 10).”) to integrate the functional textile article ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the conductive fibres knitted along with a base fabric of the garment of Chahine, because such a modification would allow to integrate the functional textile article.
Regarding claim 37, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach conductive fibres forming a length of interlocked fibres. Chahine, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches electrically conductive threads on fabrics that can be applied to monitor body signal (Abstract and [0001]-[0003]), and further teaches wherein the one or more conductive fibres form a length of interlocked fibers ([0044] “Generally, textiles are formed using yarn, where yarn refers to a long continuous length of a plurality of fibres that have been interlocked (i.e. fitting into each other, as if twined together, or twisted together). Herein, the terms fibre and yarn are used interchangeably… Conductive fabric (e.g. group of conductive fibres) 8 can also be formed as per the weaving structures as provided in FIG. 12.”) to integrate the functional textile article ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the conductive fibres forming a length of interlocked fibres of Chahine, because such a modification would allow to integrate the functional textile article.
Regarding claim 38, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach conductive fibres knitted into the garment. Chahine, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches electrically conductive threads on fabrics that can be applied to monitor body signal (Abstract and [0001]-[0003]), and further teaches wherein the one or more conductive fibres is/are knitted into the garment ([0042] “the conductive fabric (e.g. group of conductive fibres) 8 as a first portion can be knit along with (e.g. to be integral with) the base fabric (e.g. surface) 10 in a layer 11, such as on but not limited to a SANTONI® circular knit machine. The base fabric surface 10 of the conductive knit patch 2 can be a part of a larger garment 1 such that the garment 1 incorporates the conductive knit patch 2.) to integrate the functional textile article ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the conductive fibres knitted into the garment of Chahine, because such a modification would allow to integrate the functional textile article.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrvaljevic et al. (US 20190290181) (Hereinafter Mrvaljevic) in view of Wong et al. (US 20200281484) (Hereinafter Wong), Jayaraman et al. (US 9582038) (Hereinafter Jayaraman), and Markel (US 20120136231) (Hereinafter Markel).
Regarding claim 36, claim 21 is obvious over Mrvaljevic, Wong and Jayaraman. Mrvaljevic in view of Wang does not teach conductive fibres knitted into a seam of the garment. Markel, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a garment with health monitoring capability including ECG sensors (Abstract and [0027]), and further teaches wherein the one or more conductive fibres are knitting into a seam of the garment ([0035] “For such sensors, leads (e.g., wire leads, conductive fiber leads, etc.) may be woven into the garment, run via garment seams”) to integrate the leads into the garment ([0035]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mrvaljevic in view of Wong and Jayaraman, with the conductive fibres knitted into a seam of the garment of Markel, because such a modification would allow to integrate the leads into the garment.
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 MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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 McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights