DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites that the feedback is non-verbal and non-contextual, which does not appear to be detailed in the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites a negative limitation regarding the feedback (non-verbal and non-textual), and there does not appear to be support in the original disclosure for that exact phrasing (see 112 1st above for further guidance).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni et al. US Publication 2015/0040282 (hereinafter Longinotti-Buitoni) in view of Behar et al. US Patent 9,492,084 (hereinafter Behar).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses a system for muscle activity sensing and feedback, the system comprising: a base textile (shirt of Figure 1A, see also [0074][0241]); a muscle activity electrode coupled to the base textile and confirmed to detect muscle activity ([0032][0074][0169][0262]); a sensor coupled to the base textile (sensors 3A as well as [0169]-[0170]); a controller coupled to the base textile (14, see also the SMS processing mentioned in [0360]-[0366]); and a feedback element (sensor module of [0014]) coupled to the base textile and in communication with the controller ([0022][0024][0025][0036], [0053][0159][0176][0257], which details a sensor module that can include elements 10-11, 32-33, and 40, including haptic, thermal, music-based audio, and visual types of feedback; [0209] details a visual feedback device 40 that can be connected to each of the sensors, [0224] also teaches non-electrode sensors that provide an alert when the user enters/leaves a perimeter), wherein the feedback element: receives a feedback signal from the controller and imparts feedback to a user based on electrical signal from the muscle activity electrode and imparts feedback to a user based on a sensor signal from the sensor ([0024][0033][0034][0209] in addition to the above mentioned feedback types mentioned above).
Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the sensor module ([0209]) is electrically connected to the controller which is in turn electrically connected to all the sensors (muscle activity electrode and other sensors as per [0169]-[0170][0224] which details a list of sensor types including positional sensors for the user’s location). And though the individual sensors/electrodes are disclosed as having their own thresholds for an alert/alarm/feedback, there is not explicit mention that they are all able to utilize the same feedback element interchangeably (as argued). Behar teaches a sensing system that includes a feedback element (91 and 169, akin to Longinotti-Buitoni’s display 40 on the textile in Figure 1A; see also column 15 line 49 through column 16 line 44 of Behar), which can utilize both physiological sensors and environmental sensors (column 14 lines 49-65 and column 15 line 49 through column 16 line 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize an element to provide feedback from both types of sensor’s data as taught by Behar with the system of Longinotti-Buitoni as predictable results would have ensued (allowing the user to be alerted to more than a single issue as Behar details is useful for fire fighters, rescuers, police, and the like).
Regarding claim 3, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the feedback element comprises a motor ([0036][0053] which details haptic feedback specifically, and while a motor is not explicitly mentioned, a motor is simply being read as an element that takes an electrical signal and produces a mechanical one which the vibrations mentioned by the haptic feedback element meets that interpretation).
Regarding claims 4-5, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the feedback is thermal ([0159], which details heating/cooling elements that in response to a threshold from the controller is configured to provide heating/cooling to the user).
Regarding claim 7, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the controller is in wireless communication with at least one of the muscle activity electrode and the feedback element ([0167] which details that the interface between the processing components and the sensors can be wired or wireless, see also [0177] which details wireless connection to a set of speakers).
Regarding claim 8, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the controller is in wireless communication with an external client device (Figure 1A shows the general wireless connection, see also [0162]).
Regarding claim 9, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses a tab assembly coupled to the base textile and coupled between the controller and the muscle activity electrode (Figure 1A at module 1, which can be a wired or wireless connection between the sensors/feedback elements and the processor 14), wherein the controller comprises: a signal acquisition and amplification module ([0366] which details filtering, sampling, and amplification); and a central processing unit connected to the signal acquisition and amplification module ([0366] which mentions a microprocessor that basically controls the other elements), wherein the signal acquisition and amplification module receives, via the tab assembly, the at least one of the electrical signal from the muscle activity electrode and the sensor signal from the sensor and amplifies the at least one of the electrical signal and the sensor signal ([0360]-[0366] which details the general processing of the physiological signals), and the central processing unit processes the amplified at least one of the electrical signal and the sensor signal, generates the feedback signal based on the amplified at least one of the electrical signal and the sensor signal, and provides the feedback signal to the feedback element via the tab assembly (the feedback mentioned above is shown in the flow chart in Figure 24, which shows the processed signal goes through the processing components before a feedback signal returns to the user, see also [0273]).
Regarding claim 10, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses that the controller further comprises a wireless module connected to the central processing unit ([0158] which details the belt itself can handle the processing elements in addition a to a transmitter for wireless transmission, this is in addition to sensor module 1 which is mentioned above as being wired or wireless in nature), and the central processing unit communicates with an external client device via the wireless module ([0158] the transceiver/transmitter combo allows it communicate with any external transmitter).
Regarding claim 11, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses a system for muscle activity sensing and feedback, the system comprising: a base textile configured to apply a compression force against a dermal surface of a user ([0241]); the electrode, sensor, and controller and their expanded configured for language is still taught by Longinotti-Buitoni in the same above cited paragraphs and elements).
Regarding claims 12-17 and 19-20, see the contents of rejected claims 2-7 and 9-10 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni in view of Behar, and in further view of Dow et al. US publication 2016/0374835 (hereinafter Dow).
Regarding claim 18, Longinotti-Buitoni is silent on the client device being a wirelessly connected prosthetic limb. Dow teaches a prosthetic controlling system that includes a prosthetic limb (120 as per [0007][0017][0019] and Figure 1) with a wireless connected controller (110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the client device as taught by Dow with the device of Longinotti-Buitoni in order to either control, aid in controlling, or afford a change in mode of operation of the prosthetic limb.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant is initially arguing that feedback element is singular in nature, that is not believed to be the case. “Feedback element” is a black box phase that can incorporate multiple subcomponents into it, especially considering the Applicant has no special definition of “element”. Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a singular component “the sensor module” which can include multiple sub elements.
Further, there is a lack of configured for/to language with respect to the feedback element, which allows for the “fully capable without any additional structural modification” interpretation to be taken here as well (regarding claim 1; claim 11 does require the language to be met directly as the needed language is present). So regarding claim 1, the Applicant is arguing more narrowly than what is claimed. However, in the effort of advancing prosecution, a secondary reference that explicitly combines multiple sensor type’s data into a single controller than is output to a single feedback element is explicitly disclosed.
Further, the feedback element (and the sensor of claim 1) are not required to be physically on the base textile at all, as “coupled to” can include “electrically coupled”. As a system claim, the feedback element being electrically coupled could include a computer that receives all of the total collected data from each of the sensors and displays the information which is standard practice for medical monitoring. This would more than meet the limitations this way.
Claim Interpretation
This interpretation wasn’t used however, claim 1 recites “the sensor” with little to no detail describing it, where nothing prohibits the interpretation of it also being a muscle activity electrode. Sensors are the larger genus which can include types of electrodes as the species within the sensor’s larger category. An ECG electrode is considered a type of sensor, as are EMG and EEG electrodes. Again, this does not apply to claim 11, as the processing components and sensor/electrode are actually defined using the appropriate language.
It should be also be noted that the feedback element, of claim 11, is being read in that the two different sensor signals can be sent to the controller where an output signal is further sent to the feedback element to alert the user, where the alert can pertain to either of the two signals. It is not being read that the two signals are somehow combined or an analysis is taken by the processor to utilize both signals simultaneously at which point an output signal is sent to the feedback element. They are being treated as two distinct signals that the processor can send an output to the feedback element based on either of them, but both must be able to have their alerts output by the same “feedback element”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights