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
This Action is in response to the amendment filed on February 20, 2026.
As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3-4, 14, 17, 21, 23, and 25-31 were amended. Claims 1-31 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, lines 10-13 recite “each of said sensory events defining a synergistic action of said two or more sensory stimulations as a signal pathway to produce two or more sensory outcomes, each of said two or more sensory outcomes for inducing a physiological response or sensory perception" and the phrase "to produce two or more sensory outcomes" has been interpreted to mean the plurality of sensory events collectively produce two or more sensory outcomes, rather than each sensory event producing two or more outcomes. This is based upon para. [0118]-[0119] and [0135] of the Specification describing the sensory outcome as the user's physiological response to a given sensory event. A particular sensory event would produce a corresponding sensory outcome.
Claim 1, the last three lines recite “a removable sim skin … said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes” and this has been interpreted to require a single removable sim skin (“a” removable sim skin), and this single sim skin has either female, male, or unisex components, and either a female, male, or unisex size. Similarly, this limitation is recited in claim 31, the last three lines and interpreted in the same manner.
Claim 28, lines 3-5 recite “all three garment areas may be interconnected to provide synergy and totality of sensory manipulation throughout the entire garment” and the phrase “synergy and totality of sensory manipulation” in this context has been interpreted to mean that all three garment areas include sensory device actuators so the entire, i.e., total garment can provide sensory manipulation.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“input module in communication with said initiating device to collect sensory related data” in claim 1.
The “input module” corresponding structure is considered to be one or more sensors based upon para. [0029] of the Specification: “an input module to collect sensory related data.”
“sensory devices connected to the wearable garment that actuate to produce two or more sensory stimulations, each of said two or more sensory stimulations for inducing physiological stimulation” in claim 1 and similarly in claim 31.
The “sensory devices” corresponding structure is considered an actuator that produces a stimulus that can be perceived by the body. This is based upon para. [0113] of the Specification: “Sensory Device … refer to any contrivance, such as an ultrasonic pad or electrode, that receives and or responds to data, a signal or stimulus and translates or transfers this input into a form of energy that acts on one or more of the faculties by which the body perceives an external stimulus: one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch.”
“decoder to i) collect the sensory related data from the input module … and ii) transform the sensory related data into a format compatible with the control centre, wherein the decoder transmits transformed data via a communications protocol in the control centre” in claim 4. Similarly, “decoder for transforming the sensory related data using a communication protocol” in claim 31.
The “decoder” corresponding structure is considered to be a module that receives sensory related data, alters the data, and transmits the data via a wired or wireless transfer based upon Fig. 15 and para. [0182]-[0185] of the Specification.
“force simulation device actuators that may apply physical forces to induce particular physiological sensations” in claim 21, and “force simulation device actuators that apply localized forces” in claim 22.
The “force simulation device” corresponding structure is considered a mechanical actuator that simulates a force on the body based upon para. [0124] of the Specification: “a Force Simulating Device, which is a mechanical componentry within garments to simulate the effects of forces on the body … give an individual the sensation of motion whether it be a push, pull, twist, tension, compression or constriction applied in a particular direction or the feeling of centripetal or centrifugal force.”
“constriction, compression stimulation device actuators” in claim 24.
The “constriction, compression stimulation device actuators” corresponding structure is considered an actuator that selectively restricts areas of the garment to apply pressure based upon Fig. 10, para. [0157], and para. [0162] of the Specification: “polymeric artificial muscles, liquid-filled bladder(s), piezo-electric actuators, electronic polymeric actuators, Carbon Nanotube Artificial Muscles, linear actuators, winding or tensing elements or other systems.”
“force or physics stimulation device actuators that provide capabilities of applying a force comprising at least one of pulling, pushing, centrifugal or centripetal feeling” in claim 26.
The “force or physics stimulation device actuators” corresponding structure is considered an actuator that may cause a pulling action on the user, based upon Fig. 10a and para. [0158] of the Specification: “linear actuators … shortening of the vertical webbing may cause a pulling action which draws on the users torso as if gravity is affecting the user.”
“initiating device for creating and transmitting sensory related data” in claim 31.
The “initiating device” corresponding structure is based upon para. [0174] of the instant Specification stating the “initiating device is a computing device that uses software to collect sensory related data and create control data that will determine what physiological stimulation each pair of electrodes 10 or other actuator will create at any given point in time.”
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 Objections
Claims 30-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30, line 3 recites “US FDA” and this acronym should be defined the first time it is used in each set of independent claims. Thus, Examiner suggests --United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA)--.
Claim 31, line 11 recites “US FDA” and this acronym should be defined the first time it is used in each set of independent claims. Thus, Examiner suggests --United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA)--.
Claim 31, lines 20-21 recite “the plurality of sensory events” and Examiner suggests --the sensory events-- to use consistent language with lines 13-14.
Claim 31, line 22 recites “the sensory devices” and Examiner suggests --the plurality of sensory devices-- to clarify the antecedent basis because line 3 recites “a plurality of sensory devices.”
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 1-31 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 1, line 23 recites “sim skin” which is confusing because it appears “sim” is an abbreviation for “simulation,” but Applicant’s disclosed “sim skin” is not a simulation of any kind. Instead, the “sim skin” appears to be a tangible material that is worn on the outside of the garment or exoskeleton (“The wearable material may be referred to as ‘sim skin’, for example” see para. [0249]-[0251] of the Specification). Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “sim skin.” For purposes of examination, “sim skin” has been interpreted to mean a wearable material.
Claim 23, lines 2-6 recite “based on parameters comprising: … iii) a duration for which the force is applied from an amount of seconds; or deactivates once a target force is reached and a speed at which the force is removed from fast to slow” and it is unclear what the phrase “or deactivates” is referring to. For example, is this part of the list of “parameters”, part of the “duration” parameter, or is the deactivation considered separate from the parameters. If it is part of the list of parameters, Examiner suggests adding --iv)--. For purposes of Examination, the phrase “or deactivates once a target force is reached and a speed at which the force is removed from fast to slow” is considered a single “parameter” and the “or” indicates that the claim only requires one of the listed parameters.
Claim 25, lines 4-5 recite “at least one setting selected from the group consisting of … compression occurs or is removed as needed” and the phrase “as needed” renders the claim indefinite. Is this setting only available “as needed”?
Claim 27, the last four lines recite “and an ability to fluctuate between the speed that pushing or pulling occurs is removed from fast or slow, the length the pulling or pushing is activated for multiple seconds or once fully activated, revert to a deactivated state” and it is unclear what is meant by fluctuating between this group. These are settings that can be altered. Are the individual variables of each setting being fluctuated? Are the settings fluctuating among the group?
Claim 30, lines 2-3 recite “medically compliant electrical impulse amplifier transmitter Receiver (MCEIATR) adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards” which is vague and indefinite. Which particular US FDA standards are being referred to? What “Canadian and European standards” are being referred to?
Claim 31, lines 10-12 recite “medically compliant electrical impulse amplifier transmitter receiver (MCEIATR) adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards” which is vague and indefinite. Which particular US FDA standards are being referred to? What “Canadian and European standards” are being referred to?
Claim 31, the third to last line recites “sim skin” which is confusing because it appears “sim” is an abbreviation for “simulation,” but Applicant’s disclosed “sim skin” is not a simulation of any kind. Instead, the “sim skin” appears to be a tangible material that is worn on the outside of the garment or exoskeleton (“The wearable material may be referred to as ‘sim skin’, for example” see para. [0249]-[0251] of the Specification). Thus, it is unclear what is meant by “sim skin.” For purposes of examination, “sim skin” has been interpreted to mean a wearable material.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415).
Regarding claim 1, Van Den Eerenbeemd discloses a wearable device (tactile stimulation system 100, including textile jacket 108, Fig. 1) for generating sensory stimulations (vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. These tactile stimulations would be perceivable by the user’s sensory nerves and thus read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensory stimulations”) in a user (the user in Fig. 1) engaged with (by using tactile stimulation system 100, Fig. 1) an initiating device (the “initiating device” is considered the computing element that analyzes the collected sensory related data to determine how to actuate the actuators. Van Den Eerenbeemd’s initiating device analyzes sensor data to classify what emotion the user is experiencing, to control the actuators accordingly: “The appropriate tactile stimulation pattern can then be played in response to a person[’s] emotional state… An example of this is a person feeling a shivering, the sensors registering the shiver and as a response providing tactile stimulation information that relates to the registered emotion” in para. [0012], “The registered data can then be interpreted by means of feature extraction followed by classification (e.g. Support Vector Machines). The results are stored as classified emotions. The measured emotions can then be reinforced by using tactile stimulation patterns that belong to that specific emotion” see the last nine lines of [0051]) comprising:
a wearable garment (textile jacket 108, Fig. 1);
an input module (the “sensor arrangement” to measure psychophysiological data such as Galvanic Skin Response, Electrocardiogram, photoplethysmograph, respiratory, position, acceleration, and facial expression sensors, see all of [0012]) in communication with said initiating device (the input module collects sensory related data and communicates the sensor data to the initiating device so measured/classified emotions can be reinforced by using tactile stimulation patterns that belong to that specific emotion, see the last nine lines of [0051]) to collect sensory related data (the psychophysiological data described in para. [0012] is sensory related data);
a plurality of sensory devices (the plurality of actuators 201-216, Fig. 2. These produce stimulation such as vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. Thus, the actuators act on one or more of the faculties by which the body perceives an external stimulus, such as touch) connected to the wearable garment (108, see Figs. 1-2) that actuate to produce one or more sensory stimulations (vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. These tactile stimulations would be perceivable by the user’s sensory nerves and thus read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensory stimulations”), each of said one or more sensory stimulations for inducing physiological stimulation (the user’s sensory nerves would detect vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, etc., and the actuators are designed to achieve “a physiological response belonging to [a] specific emotion” including “shivers down the spine … to enhance feelings of fear,” see the first seven lines of [0032] and para. [0042]-[0050]); and
a control centre (metadata player 102, and transceiver 110, Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor for determining sensory events (the “sensory event” is the activation of one or more sensory devices to produce a sensory stimulation based on para. [0116] of Applicant’s Specification. Van Den Eerenbeemd discloses a processor to determine sensory events in lines 4-18 of [0041], the metadata player 102 processes information and then provides signals to the transceiver 110 in the jacket 108 to activate appropriate actuators to stimulate the skin of the person to simulate a bodily response associated with an emotion. Thus, the metadata player 102 includes a processor that activates one or more of the sensory devices to produce a sensory stimulation), each of said sensory events defining a synergistic action of said one or more sensory stimulations as a signal pathway to produce two or more sensory outcomes (for example, “send shivers down a person’s spine by sequentially driving the actuators that are placed along the spine to enhance feelings of fear” in [0043], this sequential activation of multiple actuators is a synergistic action of multiple actuators to produce a sensory outcome of the shiver sensation to enhance fear, which would necessarily involve a signal pathway as the body’s skin and nervous system transmit these sensations to the brain via a physiological signal pathway. Additional sensory outcomes are described in para. [0042]-[0050]), each of said two or more sensory outcomes for inducing a physiological response or sensory perception (see para. [0042]-[0050], “feelings of fear,” “falling in love,” “being afraid,” “comforting stroke when the viewer feels sad,” “happy feelings,” “anger,” “feeling of sadness”);
a transceiver (transceiver 110, Fig. 1) which, in response to receiving the sensory related data (see the last nine lines of [0051], the sensors enable psychophysiological data to be registered and classified as emotions, and then stimulation signals can be provided to reinforce that measured emotion), sending an activating signal to actuate one or more of said plurality of sensory devices (transceiver 110 receives signals from metadata player 102, and steering signals are then distributed via a bus structure to control the activation of the multiple actuators 201-216, see lines 10-16 of [0041]) to activate the sensory events (see lines 16-18 of [0041]);
Van Den Eerenbeemd states that a wide variety of sensory devices (actuators 201-206, Fig. 2) may be used (see the last eleven lines of [0026]) and that combinations of pressure, shear and movement like a stroking movement or touch are included (see the last sentence of [0009]), but does not specifically disclose the plurality of sensory devices producing at least a second sensory stimulation; the synergistic action of two or more sensory stimulations comprises at least two of electrical muscle stimulation, audio, haptic feedback, force feedback, constriction, compression, airflow, temperature stimulation, and combinations thereof; the transceiver for receiving the sensory related data collected via the input module; a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Mar teaches a related haptic feedback interface (10, Fig. 1) that can be applied directly to the human body (see the last two sentences of [0014]) for gaming, virtual reality, or augmented reality (see lines 1-5 of [0021]). Mar includes a plurality of sensory devices (EMS electrodes 18, actuators 28, Fig. 1; “system 10 may be a mixed system of EMS electrodes and vibratory actuators” see lines 7-10 of [0021] and see the last sentence of [0013]) that actuate to produce two or more sensory stimulations (vibration and the EMS electrodes act on one or more of the faculties by which the body perceives an external stimulus). Mar discloses a processor (processor 12, Fig. 1) for determining sensory events (the processor 12 activates the sensory devices 18, 28, via EMS drive circuit 16 and actuator drive circuit 26, Fig. 1; see para. [0017]-[0018]), the sensory events defining a synergistic action of said two or more sensory stimulations (a converting unit allows EMS feedback to be driven in conjunction with the vibratory feedback, see para. [0028]. This is a synergistic action as both the vibration and EMS stimulation provide the haptic feedback) as a signal pathway to produce two or more sensory outcomes for inducing a physiological response or sensory perception (sensory outcomes such as something crawling up an arm, see lines 6-12 of [0026]; providing an opposing force, see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2; and simulating feelings such as a bumpy texture, see Fig. 3). The synergistic action of the two or more sensory stimulations comprise at least electrical muscle stimulation (EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1) and haptic feedback or force feedback (actuator 28 may be an eccentric rotating mass vibration motor, see the last sentence of [0015]. Vibration against skin is haptic, and applies a force). The addition of electrical muscle stimulation sensory devices (18) is beneficial because they target specific muscles and apply currents in particular ways to contract and relax the muscle to produce a particular feedback sensation (see lines 3-6 of [0026] and lines 3-7 of [0005]) which may be more palpable than vibratory feedback alone (see para. [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination of physical vibrations and targeted muscle contraction/relaxation could be tailored to provide additional sensory outcomes, such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensory devices and the processor of Van Den Eerenbeemd to include sensory devices that actuate to produce two or more sensory stimulations such as electrodes that provide electrical muscle stimulation and vibratory haptic or force feedback, with the processor determining sensory events defining a synergistic action of the two or more sensory stimulations as taught by Mar so the physical vibratory sensations provided to the user can be enhanced with more palpable EMS haptic feedback that targets specific muscles, and causes the specific muscles to contract and relax in particular ways to produce more realistic feedback sensations, such as crawling forces (see lines 6-12 of [0026]), textures (Fig. 3), and opposing forces (see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2), or other sensory outcomes such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke.
The modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar device is still silent regarding the transceiver (110, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) for receiving the sensory related data (data from the sensors) collected via the input module (sensors); a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Hayner teaches a related wearable garment (shirt 100, Fig. 1) that includes both an input module (sensors 105, Fig. 1; 200, 205, 210, Fig. 2; including accelerometers, gyroscopes, pressure, acoustic, temperature, magnetic, optical, torsion, tension, force, etc., see the first sentence of [0014]), and a plurality of haptic sensory devices (feedback devices 110, Fig. 1; 235, 240, 245, Fig. 2; including vibration, tension, push/pull, electrical stimulation, audio/acoustic, thermal, or optical, see para. [0016]). The garment (100) includes a decoder (programmable data processing system 115, Fig. 1; 220, Fig. 2; see lines 6-16 of [0018]) and a wireless communication system (125, Fig. 1; 230, Fig. 2; and see the last sentence of [0018]) for receiving sensory related data (data from sensors) collected via the input module (sensors), and this data may be stored in a storage device (225, Fig. 2; see lines 11-13 of [0018]) and the data may be communicated to an external system (see lines 13-16 of [0018]). Additionally, the decoder (115, 220, Figs. 1-2) may, as a result of processing data collected from the input module (sensors) determine that specific feedback should be applied to one or more of the sensory devices (see the first sentence of [0019]), or the feedback may be the result of information or commands received via the communications system (see the last sentence of [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input module and transceiver of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar so that the input module (sensors) is attached to the garment and the transceiver is configured to receive the sensory related data collected by the input module through a decoder as taught by Hayner so that the sensory related data can be transmitted to an external system, such as the metadata player of Van Den Eerenbeemd, and the sensory related data can be evaluated to determine whether specific feedback should be applied to the user.
The modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner device is still silent regarding a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Mullen teaches a related wearable garment (wearable garment 102, Fig. 1A, Fig. 3) with at least one sensory device (inflatable bladder 202, Fig. 2A) for providing forces to simulate real-world sensations (providing therapeutic pressure sensations such as “a simulated hug”, see para. [0043]). Mullen includes a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data (“selecting at least one pressure profile based on an intended wearer of the therapeutic pressure application device” see the last four lines of [0010]. The “pressure profile based on an intended wearer” is user profile data), each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback (the pressure profiles have “various selectable pressure profiles/cycles” as seen in Fig. 5 and para. [0068]. The timing and/or magnitude of the pressure is different sensory feedback); each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip (“The various pressure profiles may be stored in the controller 412 (FIG. 4), which preferably includes internal non-volatile memory or employs a non-volatile memory device external to the controller for storing an executable control routine and the selectable pressure profiles” see para. [0068]. A non-volatile memory device is a physical memory that retains stored data even when powered off, which reads on a memory chip). Additionally, Mullen’s wearable garment (102) further comprises a removable sim skin (jacket 302 is a wearable material, removably secured via “hook fasteners 304-307 that cooperate with corresponding loop fasteners 308-311” see Fig. 3 and para. [0044]) covering the outside of said wearable garment (102, see Fig. 3), said sim skin (302) is selected from female, male and unisex components (loop fasteners 308-311 are “female” components that mate with “male” hooks 304-307) and sizes (the jacket is necessarily either female, male, or unisex in its size). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sim skin (302) provides an expected result of a more aesthetically pleasing look due to concealing the operative components of the therapeutic garment (102), and also provides an expected result of added warmth due to the additional layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable garment of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner to include an inflatable bladder, a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback and residing on a memory chip, and further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes as taught by Mullen because the inflatable bladder would allow the device to provide simulated hug sensations that can be tailored to meet the user’s need based on the profile that is selected, and because the removable sim skin provides an expected result of a more aesthetically pleasing look, with added warmth.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices comprise electrical stimulus interfaces or electrodes (EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1 of Mar).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the input module (sensors of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Hayner) collects physiological feedback data of the user of the wearable device (psychophysiological data such as Galvanic Skin Response, Electrocardiogram, photoplethysmograph, respiratory, position, acceleration, and facial expression sensors, see all of [0012] of Van Den Eerenbeemd) in response to activating the sensory events (see the last nine lines of [0051] of Van Den Eerenbeemd, the sensory events are activated (i.e., the sensory device actuators are actuated to produce sensory outcomes), the physiological data of the user is interpreted, and the measured emotions can then be reinforced by using tactile stimulation patterns that belong to that specific emotion).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses further comprising: a decoder (programmable data processing system 115, Fig. 1; 220, Fig. 2; see lines 6-16 of [0018] of Hayner) to i) collect the sensory related data (sensor data) from the input module (sensors of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Hayner; see lines 6-16 of [0018] of Hayner describing the data being collected), the sensory related data being sent from said initiating device (Van Den Eerenbeemd’s initiating device analyzes sensor data to classify emotions as described in para. [0012] and [0051]. In the modified device, Hayner’s decoder receives this data, transforms it, and then sends it to an external system, see lines 6-16 of [0018]), and ii) transform the sensory related data into a format compatible with the control centre using a communications protocol (the data processing system formats, encrypts, and compresses the sensor data, see lines 6-16 of [0018] of Hayner and the modified device transmits this data to the metadata player 102 of Van Den Eerenbeemd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the data in a compatible format when making this modification so the data is readable), wherein the decoder transmits transformed data via the communications protocol (the modified device transmits the sensor data to an external system such as the metadata player 102 of Van Den Eerenbeemd. This reads on a communications protocol) to the control centre (102, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the control centre (102, Van Den Eerenbeemd) processes the transformed data (the metadata player 102 processes the metadata file 300 and plays tactile stimulation patterns in response, see para. [0041] of Van Den Eerenbeemd. In the modified device, the transformed data is transmitted to metadata player 102) from the decoder (the modified device includes the programmable data processing system 115, Fig. 1; 220, Fig. 2; see lines 6-16 of [0018] of Hayner) to determine the sensory events (the sensory events are determined by the metadata player 102 controlling the plurality of actuators).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the control centre (102, Van Den Eerenbeemd) controls signal, duration, strength, and/or pattern of the two or more sensory stimulations of each of said sensory events (the actuators’ shapes 306, pattern 308, and sequence 310, Fig. 3a are controlled by the control centre 102 of Van Den Eerenbeemd and the modified device would still have the additional actuators of Mar being controlled by this control centre. This reads on at least the signal and pattern of the sensory stimulations of the sensory event), whether singularly, in a sensory event array, random, or other formation (“other formation” is a broad phrase that would include anything other than singular, a sensory event array, or random control. The control centre 102 controls the shapes 308, pattern 308, and sequence 310 based upon a metadata file 300, which may be generated by a metadata editor 320, see para. [0040] of Van Den Eerenbeemd. This would at least read on “other formation”).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (actuators 201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Mar and Mullen) are actuators for force (pressure forces or displacements perpendicular to the skin or shear forces or displacements in the plane of the skin may be applied, see the last two sentences of [0009] of Van Den Eerenbeemd), constriction, compression (the inflatable bladder 202 of Mullen constricts/compresses the body to provide a simulated hug), vibration (actuators 201-216, Fig. 2, which may be vibration motors, see the last eleven lines of [0026] of Van Den Eerenbeemd. Additionally, Mar teaches vibratory actuators 28) and electrical stimulation (via EMS electrodes 18 taught by Mar EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1; “system 10 may be a mixed system of EMS electrodes and vibratory actuators” see lines 7-10 of [0021] and see the last sentence of [0013 of Mar) to produce the two or more sensory stimulations (as described in the claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the control centre (102, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) selectively identifies a subset of said plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, and Mar) of an area of the wearable garment (108) to be activated (such as the actuator group 216, Fig. 2; see lines 1-5 of [0031] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Mar) can deliver multiple types of said two or more sensory stimulations (see the last eleven lines of [0026] of Van Den Eerenbeemd, and note that the sensory devices have been modified to include electrical muscle stimulation as taught by Mar) comprising at least electrical muscle stimulation (EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1 of Mar).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the two or more sensory stimulations produced by actuation of said plurality of sensory devices (actuators 201-216 of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Mar) are configured to occur singularly or in any combination of synchronous, intermittent, consecutive, and imbricate (pattern sequence 310 would include stimulations with the shapes 306, Fig. 3a, the shapes such as 0, 1, 2, 13, 14, N, may be a “short lived signal” which would at least be intermittent or consecutive; see the first two sentences of [0035] of Van Den Eerenbeemd, see also the last two sentences of [0038] and paragraph [0039] describing intermittent stimulations).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Mar) are connected to the wearable garment (108) in a predetermined and defined placement (see the locations of 201-216 in Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) based on the sensory events (the actuators are specifically placed at locations associated with the sensory events, such as the belly, back, spine, shoulder, chest, and arms, see lines 1-11 of [0032] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Mar) comprise vibration actuators (see lines 6-7 of [0026] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Mar) comprise force simulation device actuators (“virtual touches” on the skin can be achieved due to the timing of the firing of tactile actuators such as 2161 and 2162, see lines 6-10 of [0030] of Van Den Eerenbeemd) configured to apply physical forces (actuators 216 are vibration actuators, applied over the skin. Vibrations apply physical forces) to induce particular physiological sensations (such as a “virtual touch” or the sensations described in para. [0043]-[0050] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd as modified by Mar) comprise force simulation device actuators (“virtual touches” on the skin can be achieved due to the timing of the firing of tactile actuators such as 2161 and 2162, see lines 6-10 of [0030] of Van Den Eerenbeemd) that apply localized forces (vibrations are applied at the locations of 2161 and 2162, see Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the force simulation device actuators (“virtual touches” provides due to the timing of the firing of tactile actuators such as 2161 and 2162, see lines 6-10 of [0030] of Van Den Eerenbeemd) are configured to alter actuated force based on parameters comprising: iii) a duration for which the force is applied (the device is able to control actuator duration, see lines 1-16 of [0036], and para. [0038] of Van Den Eerenbeemd which describes an example of first actuator settings lasting 7.9 seconds) from an amount of seconds (see para. [0038]. Additionally, note that adjusting the duration of the force application would necessarily adjust an “amount” of seconds, even if the amount is a mere millisecond or microsecond). It is noted that as best understood, the parameters are listed in the alternative with the term “or” and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 23 only requires one of the listed parameters.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (actuators 201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Mar and Mullen) comprise constriction, compression stimulation device actuators (the pump and inflatable bladder 202 of Mullen constricts/compresses the body to provide a simulated hug) that provide capabilities of applying a compression and/or constrictive feeling to a physiological location (the bladder 202 inflates against the body, thus applying a compression and/or constrictive feeling to the corresponding location on the body).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the constriction, compression stimulation device actuators (the pump and inflatable bladder 202 of Mullen) alter actuated constriction, compression based on various parameters altered to affect the sensation of constriction, compression and further squeezing comprising at least one setting of pressure (the user selects a pressure profile such as Fig. 5 of Mullen. The pressure profiles have “various selectable pressure profiles/cycles” as described in para. [0068], thereby altering the sensation of constriction, compression, squeezing). It is noted that the settings are listed in a Markush group and thus claim 25 only requires one of the listed settings.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the plurality of sensory devices (201-216, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Mar) comprise force or physics stimulation device actuators that provide capabilities of applying a force comprising at least one of pulling, pushing, centrifugal or centripetal feeling to a location of the user’s body or to the body as a whole (pressure forces or displacements perpendicular to the skin or shear forces or displacements in the plane of the skin may be applied, see the last two sentences of [0009] of Van Den Eerenbeemd. This is at least a force of pulling or pushing to a location of the user’s body).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the force or physics stimulation device actuators are configured to alter actuated force based on various parameters altered to affect the sensation of force or physics comprising at least one setting such as the length the pulling or pushing is activated (the device is able to control actuator duration, see lines 1-16 of [0036], and para. [0038] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the wearable garment (108 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, as modified by Mullen) is separated into three garment areas to cover the body of said person (see Figs. 1-2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd, there is an abdominal area, a left arm area, and a right arm area), said garment areas comprising an abdominal area (205, 206, 211, 212, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd), an upper torso or chest and shoulder area (204, 213, 203, 214, Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd), and coverage of both the abdominal and torso area (actuators 212, 205, cover both the abdominal area and torso area, see Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd), wherein all three garment areas are configured to be interconnected (they are all interconnected because they are part of the same garment 108, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) to provide synergy and totality of sensory manipulation (the three garment areas carry actuators that are activated in a synergistic manner for manipulation of the senses, as described in para. [0042]-[0050] of Van Den Eerenbeemd) throughout the entire garment (actuators extend throughout the three areas of garment 108, see Figs. 1-2) as defined by the signal pathway (the body’s skin and nervous system transmit the tactile sensations to the brain via a signal pathway) to create the two or more sensory stimulations to produce the one or more sensory outcomes (for example, “send shivers down a person’s spine by sequentially driving the actuators that are placed along the spine to enhance feelings of fear” in [0043], this sequential activation of multiple actuators produces a sensory outcome of fear).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses wherein the control centre (102 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) determines the sensory events using sensory signatures (the signatures are considered to be the programmed combinations of tactile stimulations, for example, the instructions for sequential activation of actuators along the spine, see lines 1-3 of [0043]; the instructions for driving a series of actuators across the arms and shoulders to create an impression of an insect walking on your skin, see lines 1-2 of [0044], implementing a comforting stroke, line 1 of [0047], tickling fingers, lines 1-2 of [0048] of Van Den Eerenbeemd), each sensory signature defining combinations of the two or more sensory stimulations (sequential activation of actuators along the spine, see lines 1-3 of [0043 of Van Den Eerenbeemd]) and related control parameters (such as the shape, pattern, and timing/duration of the activation, see lines 1-16 of [0036], and para. [0038] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Thorner (2009/0069081).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device is still silent regarding wherein the control centre stores personalized settings to determine maximum and minimum sensations for the two or more sensory stimulations of the sensory events.
However, it is noted that Van Den Eerenbeemd additionally states that a user may edit the tactile sensation settings by a computer program run on a PC (via metadata editor 320, Fig. 3B; see lines 6-8 of [0040]). Furthermore, providing each user the option to adjust and save their personal intensity preferences is well known.
For example, Thorner teaches a related tactile feedback system (such as vest-based tactile sensation generator 595, Fig. 2) for gaming and simulations (see title) having a plurality of independent tactile sensation actuators (501, Fig. 25). Thorner allows for personalized settings by the user, so that the desired setting for tactile sensations can be saved for each user and/or each video game (see the last two sentences of [0012] and see the last seven lines of [0189]), including desired intensity settings for any given tactile sensation actuator (see lines 1-8 of [0177]) to determine maximum and minimum sensations (e.g., a number between 0.00 and 2.00 in 0.03 increments is selected, see the last eight lines of [0177]) for the one or more sensory stimulations (the vibrations of the tactile sensation actuators) of the sensory events (the activation of the actuators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata editor computer program of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to include the option for a user to adjust and save personalized settings, such as the desired intensity settings for any given tactile sensation actuator to determine maximum and minimum sensations as taught by Thorner because this will allow each user to tailor the vibration intensities to their particular needs, and saving these settings on the computer will mean the user does not need to enter these settings again each time they use the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chappell et al. (2015/0173640).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device is silent regarding the input module (sensors and associated circuitry) collects the sensory related data from the plurality of sensory devices. However, it is well known in the art that sensory devices such as electrodes can provide stimulation and also be used to collect sensory related data.
For example, Chappell teaches a related therapeutic garment (Fig. 1) for electrical muscle stimulation (see the last sentence of the Abstract), and Chappell states that advantageously, the same electrodes can be used for sensing and stimulation (see the last sentence of [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input module sensors of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to include sensors incorporated into the electrical muscle stimulation electrodes as taught by Chappell because this will advantageously reduce the complexity of the garment by eliminating the need for at least some of the sensors.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seiler (2010/0217413).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device is silent regarding whether the plurality of sensory devices are removable from the wearable garment.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensory devices of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to be removably attached to the garment, for the purpose of allowing the actuators to be easily replaced, repaired, or removed, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the removed part (i.e., for replacing, repairing, removal), it would be obvious to make the element removable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Furthermore, Seiler teaches a related vibratory wearable garment (clothing in Fig. 1) entertainment system, including a plurality of sensory devices (actuators 13, 14, 15, 16, Fig. 1) which produce a force feedback vibratory stimulus (see the first sentence of [0020]). The sensory devices may be removable from the garment (“actuators 13, 14, 15, 16 could be embedded in the material, for example, by slitting the material, creating a pocket and then inserting the actuators into the pocket. Another way to affix the actuators 13, 14, 15, 16 is to simply mount them to the apparel or footwear by means of straps, clips, tie wraps, Velcro” see lines 19-24 of [0028]. Inserting the actuators into pockets formed by slits is a removable connection, as well as the use of Velcro).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensory devices of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to be removably attached to the garment, such as by Velcro, as taught by Seiler so that the sensory devices may be easily replaced, repaired, or removed to allow the garment to be washed or worn as a regular garment.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device is silent regarding the control centre (metadata player 102, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) being removable from the wearable garment (108). However, Van Den Eerenbeemd discloses that the control centre (102) may be a complementary device to a multimedia device (see para. [0025] of Van Den Eerenbeemd).
Seiler teaches a related vibratory wearable garment (clothing in Fig. 1) entertainment system, including a plurality of sensory devices (actuators 13, 14, 15, 16, Fig. 1) which produce a force feedback vibratory stimulus (see the first sentence of [0020]). Seiler has a more compact, portable control centre (handheld media device, or player 10, Fig. 1, capable of producing an audible signal and five or more individual vibratory output signals based on the tracks of the musical piece, see lines 3-7 of [0024]). The control centre (10) is removable from the wearable garment (media player 10 is stated to be portable, and may be inserted into a docking station 11 on the user’s belt, or elsewhere, see the last sentence of [0024] and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control centre of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to be a compact, portable media player which is removably mountable into a docking station on the user’s garment, as taught by Seiler, so that the user can experience these sensory stimulations even when they are not near a television. For example, the user could experience the sensory stimulations while they walk around outside, using their portable media player.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minogue et al. (2002/0058972).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device is silent regarding positions of the plurality of sensory devices on the wearable garment are user adjustable and the wearable garment comprises visual indicators detailing optional positions of the Sensory Devices to allow accurate placement.
Mingoue teaches a related electrical stimulation therapy garment (belt Fig. 3) wherein positions of the sensory devices (electrodes 27, Fig. 5) on the wearable garment (belt) are user adjustable (via selective placement within locating areas 32a, 32b, 32c, Fig. 3) and the wearable garment (belt) comprises visual indicators (locating marks 30a, 30b, 30c, Fig. 3) detailing optional positions of the sensory devices (electrodes 27, Fig. 5) to allow accurate placement (see Figs. 3-5; and see the last sentence of [0133], this allows accommodating different body sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable garment of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to include various locating areas and visual indicators for selectively placing the electrodes as taught by Minogue so that the sensory devices can be located in different positions to accommodate different body sizes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (2011/0077728).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses the wearable garment (108, Van Den Eerenbeemd) provides a set number of allowable locations for the sensory devices (201-216 locations in Fig. 2 of Van Den Eerenbeemd), but does not specifically state there would be a set number of locations for electrodes within the wearable garment.
Li teaches a related stimulation garment (Fig. 1A) that includes sensory devices such as electrodes (electrodes 103, 104, Fig. 1A) which are attachable at a set number of allowable locations (the locations shown in Fig. 1A, via conductive connector 107 which is attached on the garment, so the electrodes can be attached by a dual-lock button, see the last sentence of [0023]). This allows the electrodes to be placed at strategic positions (see the first sentence of [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable garment of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to have conductive connectors located on the garment at a set number of allowable locations to allow for attachment of the electrodes as taught by Li, so that the electrodes can be removable, but also allowing proper positioning in predetermined locations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (2014/0070957).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen device discloses a plurality of speakers (speakers 106, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) to provide local sound for the sensory events (audio information 314 is input into the metadata editor 320, see Fig. 3B of Van Den Eerenbeemd), but does not specifically state it is connected to the garment (i.e., the speakers are not a “sensory device” providing individualized local sound because they are not part of the garment).
Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a related smart garment (Fig. 1A-1B) which may provide haptic output or an audio/visual output based on sensor inputs (see the first sentence of [0017]). The garment includes a plurality of sensory devices (speakers 10, earphones 11, Fig. 1A; stimulator/vibrator 25, heat 27, cold 28, liquid/gas dispenser 24, Fig. 1B) including a plurality of speakers (speakers 10, earphones 11, Fig. 1A) connected to the garment (see Fig. 1A) to provide individualized local sound (directly to the individual’s ears via earphones 11, or in close proximity to the ears via speakers 10, Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speakers (106) of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen to be a plurality of speakers connected to the garment as sensory devices as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni so that the user can listen to the audio information/entertainment, without disturbing other people around them.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), Mullen et al. (2012/0022415), and Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (2014/0070957) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ling et al. (2003/0227374).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen/ Longinotti-Buitoni device is silent regarding an amplifier, a transmitter, and a receiver that is operatively connected to the input module to receive, amplify and transmit the sensory related data to the speakers.
Ling teaches a related wearable garment (wearable article 14, Figs. 4a-4d) which may be part of a virtual reality entertainment application (see the last sentence of the abstract). The garment is connected to a plurality of electrical and tactile sensory device actuators (electrotactile devices 12, Figs. 4b, 4d). Ling has an electrical impulse transmitter receiver (transmitting/receiving unit 30, Fig. 3e) for each sensory device (see Fig. 5, see the last sentence of [0059], the last sentence of [0062], and the second sentence of [0075]). Each individual stimulating module (module 10, Figs. 3a, 5) is able to obtain sensory and position feedback data and transmit the data through the transmitter/receiver (30) to an external processor (see the last sentence of [0054]). Additionally, each stimulation electrode (24, Fig. 2a-2b) is able to be independently controlled to provide very precise sensory control and enable the delivery of multi-channel stimuli (see lines 8-12 of [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering signals through a data bus of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen/Longinotti-Buitoni to include a transmitter and receiver for each sensory device as taught by Ling, so that each individual sensory device actuator can be independently controlled to provide precise sensory control while enabling delivery of multi-channel stimuli, and so each sensory device actuator is able to obtain sensory and position feedback data and wirelessly transmit the data through the transmitter/receiver to an external processor.
The modified device as currently combined does not specifically disclose an amplifier. However, the use of a signal amplifier is well known in the art and provides nothing more than expected results.
For example, Longinotti-Buitoni additionally teaches a related sensory stimulation garment (Fig. 1A-1B) which includes electrodes which measure EMG, and an amplifier (AMP_EMG1, AMG_EMG2, Fig. 6B) is connected with the sensor in order to boost relatively weak EMG signals (see lines 16-20 of [0226]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input module of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Mullen/Longinotti-Buitoni/Ling to be operatively connected to an amplifier as further taught by Longinotti-Buitoni in order to provide an expected result of being able to boost relatively weak sensor signals.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritzsche (2015/0202429) in view of Campos et al. (2010/0016921) and Mar et al. (2015/0070145).
Regarding claim 30, Fritzsche discloses a wearable device (Fig. 3) comprising wearable material (suit 2, Fig. 3), electrodes (electrodes 6, Fig. 3), a medically compliant electrical impulse receiver (MCEIR) (the stimulation unit 23, Fig. 3. Stimulation unit 23 is used in electromyostimulation, which is used in medical rehabiliatation for “medical fitness” as described in para. [0003]. The stimulation unit provides “safe operation” as stated in para. [0075] and the last sentence of [0022]. As best understood, the stimulation unit is considered “medically compliant” because it is relatively safe and used for a medical purpose. The stimulation unit also includes at least a receiver, see the last sentence of [0067], and the electromyostimulation provides electrical impulses), and a control center (control unit 24, Fig. 3), wherein the control center actuates the MCEIATR (via Bluetooth signal 12, Fig. 3; see the first sentence of [0070] and the first sentence of [0075]) which in turn provides stimulus through the electrodes (see lines 1-5 of [0035]) positioned on the wearable material (electrodes 6 are positioned on the suit 2, see Fig. 3). Fritzsche provides a stimulus comprising at least two of electrical muscle stimulation (electrodes 6 provide electromyostimuation, see the last sentence of [0033]), force feedback (contraction of the muscle(s) will produce a force and this will provide feedback to the user that the device is operating), compression (the garment provides partial compression, see the last sentence of [0023]. This compression will be provided together with the electromyostimulation when the wearable garment is worn), and combinations thereof.
Fritzsche does not specifically state that the “MCEIATR” has an amplifier and transmitter, and does not specifically state the MCEIATR adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards.
However, it is noted that Fritzsche discloses additional embodiment(s) that use a transceiver (see the last sentence of [0067]), and states that bidirectional communication may be desirable (see the last sentence of [0049] and the second sentence of [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation unit of Fritzsche to utilize a transceiver as taught by Fritzsche’s additional embodiment so that bidirectional communication is possible, thereby offering extended options to influence the stimulation algorithm by taking into account physiological reactions (see the second sentence of [0053]).
The modified Fritzsche device is still silent regarding the use of an amplifier in the “MCEIATR.” However, the user of amplifiers is well known in the art and provides nothing more than expected results.
For example, Campos teaches an electrical muscle stimulating device (stimulator 12, Fig. 1) which transmits an electrical signal to the user via electrodes (electrodes 20, Fig. 1) and which includes an amplifier when transmitting the signal to the user (simplifier 98, Fig. 6; see also the first sentence of [0046]) based upon a signal input by a user (via user interface 11, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation unit of Fritzsche to include an amplifier as taught by Campos because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known techniques which will provide predictable results (including an amplifier in the circuitry of stimulation device 23 of Fritzsche will allow the stimulation signal to be amplified, as in Campos). The modified device will thus have a stimulation device (23) which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of MCEIATR.
The modified Fritzsche/Campos device does not specifically state the MCEIATR adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards.
Mar teaches a related haptic feedback interface (10, Fig. 1) which can be applied directly to the human body (see the last two sentences of [0014]) for gaming, virtual reality, or augmented reality (see lines 1-5 of [0021]). The haptic feedback interface includes multiple sensory devices (EMS electrodes 18, actuators 28, Fig. 1; “system 10 may be a mixed system of EMS electrodes and vibratory actuators” see lines 7-10 of [0021] and see the last sentence of [0013]) which provide multiple sensory stimulations including at least vibration (via actuators 28, see the last sentence of [0015]) and electrical muscle stimulation (EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1). The vibratory sensory devices (28) provide physical vibration sensations (see lines 7-10 of [0021]), and the electrical muscle stimulation sensory devices (18) are able to target specific muscles and apply currents in particular ways to contract and relax the muscle to produce a particular feedback sensation (see lines 3-6 of [0026] and lines 3-7 of [0005]), including sensations such as something crawling up an arm (see lines 6-12 of [0026]), providing an opposing force (see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2), or to simulate feelings such as a bumpy texture (see Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination of physical vibrations and targeted muscle contraction/relaxation could provide various sensations, such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke. The electrical stimulation provided by Mar is medically compliant based upon FDA approved electro-muscular stimulation standards (see the first sentence of [0036]). Furthermore, although Canadian and European standards are not mentioned, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adhering to a variety of safety standards is desirable so the device can be safely operated and effectively marketed and sold in a variety of markets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MCEIATR of Fritzsche/Campos to provide electrical muscle stimulation activated under US FDA, Canadian and European approved standards as generally taught by Mar so that the physical vibratory sensations provided to the user can be safely enhanced by providing additional haptic feedback which targets specific muscles, and causes the specific muscles to contract and relax in particular ways to produce particular feedback sensations, such as crawling forces (see lines 6-12 of [0026]), textures (Fig. 3), and opposing forces (see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2), or other sensations such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke. Adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards provides an expected result that the device can be safely operated and effectively marketed and sold in a variety of markets.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Eerenbeemd et al. (2011/0063208) in view of Mar et al. (2015/0070145), Hayner (2014/0111414), Ling et al. (2003/0227374), Longinotti-Buitoni et al. (2014/0070957) and Mullen et al. (2012/0022415).
Regarding claim 31, Van Den Eerenbeemd discloses a wearable device system (tactile stimulation system 100, including textile jacket 108, Fig. 1) for generating sensory stimulations (vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. These tactile stimulations would be perceivable by the user’s sensory nerves and thus read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensory stimulations”) in a user (the user in Fig. 1) engaged with (by using tactile stimulation system 100, Fig. 1) an initiating device (the “initiating device” is considered the computing element that analyzes the collected sensory related data to determine how to actuate the actuators. Van Den Eerenbeemd’s initiating device analyzes sensor data to classify what emotion the user is experiencing, to control the actuators accordingly: “The appropriate tactile stimulation pattern can then be played in response to a person[’s] emotional state… An example of this is a person feeling a shivering, the sensors registering the shiver and as a response providing tactile stimulation information that relates to the registered emotion” in para. [0012], “The registered data can then be interpreted by means of feature extraction followed by classification (e.g. Support Vector Machines). The results are stored as classified emotions. The measured emotions can then be reinforced by using tactile stimulation patterns that belong to that specific emotion” see the last nine lines of [0051]) comprising:
wearable material (the material of textile jacket 108) connected to a plurality of sensory devices (the plurality of actuators 201-216, Fig. 2. These produce stimulation such as vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. Thus, the actuators act on one or more of the faculties by which the body perceives an external stimulus, such as touch) that actuate to produce sensory stimulations (vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, electrostimulation, or TENS, see the last eleven lines of [0026]. These tactile stimulations would be perceivable by the user’s sensory nerves and thus read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensory stimulations”), each of said sensory stimulations for inducing physiological stimulation (the user’s sensory nerves would detect vibration, mechanical stimulation, heating, cooling, etc., and the actuators are designed to achieve “a physiological response belonging to [a] specific emotion” including “shivers down the spine … to enhance feelings of fear,” see the first seven lines of [0032] and para. [0042]-[0050]), said initiating device for creating and transmitting sensory related data (see para. [0012] and the last nine lines of [0051], the initiating device creates sensory related data by registering psychophysiological data to be classified as emotions, and then transmits the sensory related data to storage);
a control centre (metadata player 102, transceiver 110, Fig. 1) with a signal processor actuation and communications interface (see lines 4-18 of [0041], the metadata player 102 processes information and then provides signals to the transceiver 110 in the jacket 108 to activate appropriate actuators to stimulate the skin of the person to simulate a bodily response associated with an emotion. The wireless communications interface of the metadata player 102 is considered the signal processor actuation and communications interface, as it communicates with transceiver 110 to send signals to activate appropriate actuators) for actuating a medically compliant electrical impulse device (steering signals are then distributed via a bus structure to control the activation of the actuators 201-216, see lines 10-16 of [0041], to provide control. Furthermore, this device is designed to be worn on a garment and transmit signals, so it appears to conform with medical requirements as best understood, because electronic communication is generally harmless and non-invasive), the control centre (102) comprising:
a processor for determining sensory events (the “sensory event” is the activation of one or more sensory devices to produce a sensory stimulation based on para. [0116] of Applicant’s Specification. Van Den Eerenbeemd discloses a processor to determine sensory events in lines 4-18 of [0041], the metadata player 102 processes information and then provides signals to the transceiver 110 in the jacket 108 to activate appropriate actuators to stimulate the skin of the person to simulate a bodily response associated with an emotion. Thus, the metadata player 102 includes a processor that activates one or more of the sensory devices to produce a sensory stimulation), each of said sensory events defining a synergistic action of one or more of said sensory stimulations as a signal pathway to produce one or more sensory outcomes (for example, “send shivers down a person’s spine by sequentially driving the actuators that are placed along the spine to enhance feelings of fear” in [0043], this sequential activation of multiple actuators is a synergistic action of multiple actuators to produce a sensory outcome of the shiver sensation to enhance fear, which would necessarily involve a signal pathway as the body’s skin and nervous system transmit these sensations to the brain via a physiological signal pathway. Additional sensory outcomes are described in para. [0042]-[0050]), each of said one or more sensory outcomes for inducing a physiological response or sensory perception (see para. [0042]-[0050], “feelings of fear,” “falling in love,” “being afraid,” “comforting stroke when the viewer feels sad,” “happy feelings,” “anger,” “feeling of sadness”);
a transceiver (transceiver 110, Fig. 1) which, in response to receiving the sensory related data (see the last nine lines of [0051], the sensors enable psychophysiological data to be registered and classified as emotions, and then stimulation signals can be provided to reinforce that measured emotion), sending an activating signal to actuate one or more Page 3 of 30Application No. 15/108,598Amendment Dated 1/27/2021Reply to Office Action of 04/29/2020sensory devices (actuators 201-216) of the plurality of sensory devices (transceiver 110 receives signals from metadata player 102, and steering signals are then distributed via a bus structure to control the activation of the multiple actuators 201-216, see lines 10-16 of [0041]) to activate the plurality of sensory events (see lines 16-18 of [0041]);
the medically compliant electrical impulse device (steering signals distributed via a bus structure to control the activation of the actuators, see lines 10-16 of [0041]) for providing electrical output to the sensory devices in response to the activating signal (steering signals are distributed via a bus structure to control the activation of the actuators, see lines 10-16 of [0041]) wherein the synergistic action of the one or more sensory stimulations (the coordinated activations of the actuators, such as described in [0042]-[0050]) comprise at one of electrical muscle stimulation, audio, haptic feedback, force feedback, constriction, compression, airflow, temperature stimulation and combinations thereof (see the last eleven lines of [0026]).
Van Den Eerenbeemd states that a wide variety of sensory devices (actuators 201-216, Fig. 2) may be used (see the last eleven lines of [0026]) and that combinations of pressure, shear and movement like a stroking movement or touch are included (see the last sentence of [0009]), but does not specifically disclose the plurality of sensory devices actuate to produce at least a second sensory stimulation; the synergistic action of the two or more sensory stimulations comprise at least two of electrical muscle stimulation, audio, haptic feedback, force feedback, constriction, compression, airflow, temperature stimulation, or combinations thereof; the transceiver for receiving the sensory related data collected via the input module; a decoder for transforming the sensory related data using a communication protocol; the medically compliant electrical impulse device including an amplifier, transmitter, and receiver, and adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards; a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Mar teaches a related haptic feedback interface (10, Fig. 1) that can be applied directly to the human body (see the last two sentences of [0014]) for gaming, virtual reality, or augmented reality (see lines 1-5 of [0021]). Mar includes a plurality of sensory devices (EMS electrodes 18, actuators 28, Fig. 1; “system 10 may be a mixed system of EMS electrodes and vibratory actuators” see lines 7-10 of [0021] and see the last sentence of [0013]) that actuate to produce two or more sensory stimulations (vibration and the EMS electrodes act on one or more of the faculties by which the body perceives an external stimulus). Mar discloses a processor (processor 12, Fig. 1) for determining sensory events (the processor 12 activates the sensory devices 18, 28, via EMS drive circuit 16 and actuator drive circuit 26, Fig. 1; see para. [0017]-[0018]), the sensory events defining a synergistic action of said two or more sensory stimulations (a converting unit allows EMS feedback to be driven in conjunction with the vibratory feedback, see para. [0028]. This is a synergistic action as both the vibration and EMS stimulation provide the haptic feedback) as a signal pathway to produce two or more sensory outcomes for inducing a physiological response or sensory perception (sensory outcomes such as something crawling up an arm, see lines 6-12 of [0026]; providing an opposing force, see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2; and simulating feelings such as a bumpy texture, see Fig. 3). The synergistic action of the two or more sensory stimulations comprise at least electrical muscle stimulation (EMS electrodes 18, Fig. 1) and haptic feedback or force feedback (actuator 28 may be an eccentric rotating mass vibration motor, see the last sentence of [0015]. Vibration against skin is haptic, and applies a force). The addition of electrical muscle stimulation sensory devices (18) is beneficial because they target specific muscles and apply currents in particular ways to contract and relax the muscle to produce a particular feedback sensation (see lines 3-6 of [0026] and lines 3-7 of [0005]) which may be more palpable than vibratory feedback alone (see para. [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination of physical vibrations and targeted muscle contraction/relaxation could be tailored to provide additional sensory outcomes, such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke. Furthermore, the electrical stimulation of Mar is medically compliant (the stimulation follows FDA approved electro-muscular stimulation standards, see the first sentence of [0036]). Furthermore, although Canadian and European standards are not mentioned, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adhering to a variety of safety standards is desirable so the device can be safely operated and effectively marketed and sold in a variety of markets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of sensory devices and the processor of Van Den Eerenbeemd to include sensory devices that actuate to produce two or more sensory stimulations such as electrodes that provide electrical muscle stimulation and vibratory haptic or force feedback, with the processor determining sensory events defining a synergistic action of the two or more sensory stimulations, and to adhere to US FDA, Canadian and European standards as generally taught by Mar so the physical vibratory sensations provided to the user can be enhanced with more palpable EMS haptic feedback that targets specific muscles, and causes the specific muscles to contract and relax in particular ways to produce more realistic feedback sensations, such as crawling forces (see lines 6-12 of [0026]), textures (Fig. 3), and opposing forces (see the first sentence of [0025] and Fig. 2), or other sensory outcomes such as simulating a human touch or comforting stroke. Adhering to US FDA, Canadian and European standards provides an expected result that the device can be safely operated and effectively marketed and sold in a variety of markets
The modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar device is still silent regarding the transceiver (110, Fig. 1 of Van Den Eerenbeemd) for receiving the sensory related data (data from the sensors) collected via the input module (sensors); a decoder for transforming the sensory related data using a communication protocol; the medically compliant electrical impulse device including an amplifier, transmitter, and receiver; a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Hayner teaches a related wearable garment (shirt 100, Fig. 1) that includes both an input module (sensors 105, Fig. 1; 200, 205, 210, Fig. 2; including accelerometers, gyroscopes, pressure, acoustic, temperature, magnetic, optical, torsion, tension, force, etc., see the first sentence of [0014]), and a plurality of haptic sensory devices (feedback devices 110, Fig. 1; 235, 240, 245, Fig. 2; including vibration, tension, push/pull, electrical stimulation, audio/acoustic, thermal, or optical, see para. [0016]). The garment (100) includes a wireless communication system (125, Fig. 1; 230, Fig. 2; and see the last sentence of [0018]) for receiving sensory related data (data from sensors) collected via the input module (sensors). Hayner discloses a decoder (programmable data processing system 115, Fig. 1; 220, Fig. 2; see lines 6-16 of [0018]) for transforming the sensory related data using a communication protocol (the data processing system formats, encrypts the data, see lines 6-16 of [0018]. This is considered a communication protocol because the appropriate formatting and encryption allows the data to then be communicated to another device). This data may be stored in a storage device (225, Fig. 2; see lines 11-13 of [0018]) and the data may be communicated to an external system (see lines 13-16 of [0018]). Additionally, the decoder (115, 220, Figs. 1-2) may, as a result of processing data collected from the input module (sensors) determine that specific feedback should be applied to one or more of the sensory devices (see the first sentence of [0019]), or the feedback may be the result of information or commands received via the communications system (see the last sentence of [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input module and transceiver of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar so that the input module (sensors) is attached to the garment and the transceiver is configured to receive the sensory related data collected by the input module through a decoder as taught by Hayner so that the sensory related data can be transmitted to an external system, such as the metadata player of Van Den Eerenbeemd, and the sensory related data can be evaluated to determine whether specific feedback should be applied to the user.
The modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner device is still silent regarding the medical compliant electrical impulse device including an amplifier, transmitter, and receiver; a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Ling teaches a related wearable garment (wearable article 14, Figs. 4a-4d) which may be part of a virtual reality entertainment application (see the last sentence of the abstract). The garment is connected to a plurality of electrical and tactile sensory device actuators (electrotactile devices 12, Figs. 4b, 4d). Ling has a medically compliant electrical impulse transmitter receiver (transmitting/receiving unit 30, Fig. 3e; this device is designed to be worn on a garment and transmit signals, so it appears to conform with medical requirements because wireless communication is generally harmless, and it is not invasive. Additionally, the electrical stimulation unit 12 is stated to be relatively safe due to using a low current, see the last sentence of [0067]) for each sensory device (see Fig. 5, see the last sentence of [0059], the last sentence of [0062], and the second sentence of [0075]). Each individual stimulating module (module 10, Figs. 3a, 5) is able to obtain sensory and position feedback data and transmit the data through the transmitter/receiver (30) to an external processor (see the last sentence of [0054]). Additionally, each stimulation electrode (24, Fig. 2a-2b) is able to be independently controlled to provide very precise sensory control and enable the delivery of multi-channel stimuli (see lines 8-12 of [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering signals through a data bus of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner to include a transmitter and receiver for each sensory device as taught by Ling, so that each individual sensory device actuator can be independently controlled to provide precise sensory control while enabling delivery of multi-channel stimuli, and so each sensory device actuator is able to obtain sensory and position feedback data and wirelessly transmit the data through the transmitter/receiver to an external processor.
The modified device does not specifically state the medically compliant electrical impulse transmitter receiver has an amplifier. However, the use of a signal amplifier is well known in the art and provides nothing more than expected results.
For example, Longinotti-Buitoni teaches a related sensory stimulation garment (Fig. 1A-1B) which includes electrodes which measure EMG, and an amplifier (AMP_EMG1, AMG_EMG2, Fig. 6B) is connected with the sensor in order to boost relatively weak EMG signals (see lines 16-20 of [0226]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input module of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Ling to be operatively connected to an amplifier as taught by Longinotti-Buitoni in order to provide an expected result of being able to boost relatively weak sensor signals.
The modified Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Ling/Longinotti-Buitoni device is still silent regarding a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback; each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip; said wearable garment further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes.
Mullen teaches a related wearable garment (wearable garment 102, Fig. 1A, Fig. 3) with at least one sensory device (inflatable bladder 202, Fig. 2A) for providing forces to simulate real-world sensations (providing therapeutic pressure sensations such as “a simulated hug”, see para. [0043]). Mullen includes a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data (“selecting at least one pressure profile based on an intended wearer of the therapeutic pressure application device” see the last four lines of [0010]. The “pressure profile based on an intended wearer” is user profile data), each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback (the pressure profiles have “various selectable pressure profiles/cycles” as seen in Fig. 5 and para. [0068]. The timing and/or magnitude of the pressure is different sensory feedback); each of said user profile data resides on a memory chip (“The various pressure profiles may be stored in the controller 412 (FIG. 4), which preferably includes internal non-volatile memory or employs a non-volatile memory device external to the controller for storing an executable control routine and the selectable pressure profiles” see para. [0068]. A non-volatile memory device is a physical memory that retains stored data even when powered off, which reads on a memory chip). Additionally, Mullen’s wearable garment (102) further comprises a removable sim skin (jacket 302 is a wearable material, removably secured via “hook fasteners 304-307 that cooperate with corresponding loop fasteners 308-311” see Fig. 3 and para. [0044]) covering the outside of said wearable garment (102, see Fig. 3), said sim skin (302) is selected from female, male and unisex components (loop fasteners 308-311 are “female” components that mate with “male” hooks 304-307) and sizes (the jacket is necessarily either female, male, or unisex in its size). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sim skin (302) provides an expected result of a more aesthetically pleasing look due to concealing the operative components of the therapeutic garment (102), and also provides an expected result of added warmth due to the additional layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable garment of Van Den Eerenbeemd/Mar/Hayner/Ling/Longinotti-Buitoni to include an inflatable bladder, a profile selector for selecting at least one user profile data, each of said user profile data having different sensory feedback and residing on a memory chip, and further comprising a removable sim skin covering the outside of said wearable garment, said sim skin is selected from female, male and unisex components and sizes as taught by Mullen because the inflatable bladder would allow the device to provide simulated hug sensations that can be tailored to meet the user’s need based on the profile that is selected, and because the removable sim skin provides an expected result of a more aesthetically pleasing look, with added warmth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that when construed in light of the Specification, “sim skin” is not a purely decorative overlay but is expressly disclosed as a wearable material that covers and conceals the underlying exoskeleton and internal components, while maintaining functional access to those components (see the last paragraph of page 15 of the Remarks, through the first line of page 16), this argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s disclosure does not clearly redefine the term “sim skin” so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to redefine the term (see MPEP 2173.05(a)). Instead, the term is loosely described as a wearable material (“The wearable material may be referred to as ‘sim skin’, for example” see para. [0249]-[0251] of the Specification). It is still unclear whether this is meant to be some sort of simulated skin. What is the meaning of the word “sim” in the context of the claim?
Regarding the argument that the claim language already frames Sim Skin as an outer covering for the underlying wearable garment (see the first full paragraph of page 16 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The “sim skin” has been interpreted as a wearable material. It is still unclear what the meaning of the word “sim” is in the context of the claim. How, if at all, is a “sim skin” different than a wearable material?
Regarding the argument that the specification defines “sim skin” as the outer wearable material and repeatedly describes it as covering the exoskeleton and its components, not as a standalone fashion garment (see page 16 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear why Applicant is arguing about whether the sim skin is decorative. Whether the sim skin is decorative is unrelated to the question of whether “sim skin” is indefinite. The specification does not provide any clear definition of “sim skin.” At best, it is described as a wearable material. It is still unclear what the meaning of the word “sim” is in the context of the claim.
Regarding the argument that the Sim Skin is affixed directly to the exoskeleton and covers the majority of the torso, front and back, shoulders, and upper arms, and the affixing components may “be easily hidden while the exoskeleton is worn,” demonstrating that Sim Skin is used as a covering that conceals the attachment/internal hardware, not merely as decoration (see the last paragraph of page 16 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is reiterated that whether the sim skin is decorative is unrelated to the question of whether “sim skin” is indefinite. Additionally, the specification does not provide any clear definition of “sim skin.” At best, it is described as a wearable material. It is still unclear what the meaning of the word “sim” is in the context of the claim.
Regarding the argument that Sim Skin is explicitly positioned as an outer layer “over” the exoskeleton and its detachable/interactive components, and this functional relationship is inconsistent with Sim Skin being merely decorative … and even when discussing aesthetics, the Specification stresses that these components are “affixed on top of an Exoskeleton” and that “each of the pieces cover a different portion of the Exoskeleton” (see page 17 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear why Applicant is arguing about whether Sim Skin is decorative.
Regarding the argument that paragraph [0255] of the Specification expressly contemplates hiding the affixation components, and if the Sim Skin were purely decorative and free-floating, there would be no reason to emphasize that the attachment hardware “may be able to be easily hidden” when the exoskeleton is worn (see the first three paragraphs of page 17 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear why Applicant is arguing about whether Sim Skin is decorative.
Regarding the argument that the characterization of Sim Skin in the Office Action is consistent with Applicant’s construction that Sim Skin is an outer covering over internal workings, and Applicant agrees that Sim Skin is a tangible material (see page 18 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Applicant appears to be agreeing with the Examiner’s interpretation that “sim skin” is a wearable material. However, the term is indefinite because it appears to use an abbreviation of simulation, while the meaning of the “sim skin” does not appear to have anything to do with simulations. Thus, the term “sim skin” has not been clearly defined so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to redefine the term (see MPEP 2173.05(a)).
Regarding the argument that the Office Action acknowledged in the 103 rejection that a “sim skin” style outer layer is understood in the art as an outer covering that conceals operative components (see the last two lines of page 18 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 19), this argument is not persuasive. The prior art Mullen did not use the term “sim skin.” Mullen’s jacket was stated to read on a “sim skin” because it is a wearable material. A “sim skin” appears to be a term created by Applicant, with no clear definition provided. This renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding the argument that the intrinsic record demonstrates that “Sim Skin” is a removable, modular wearable material that (i) covers the outside of the exoskeleton/wearable garment, (ii) covers and conceals the underlying exoskeleton and internal components while maintaining their functionality, and (iii) allows controlled, partial removal for access to the internal detachable and interactive components … therefore not merely a decorative garment but a structural outer covering integrated with the internal workings of the multi-modal wearable system as claimed … but the term “sim skin” is also an aesthetic component which affixes to the top of the exoskeleton (see the first two paragraphs of page 19 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The “sim skin” appears to be a term created by Applicant. The term is indefinite because it appears to use an abbreviation of simulation, while the meaning of the “sim skin” does not appear to have anything to do with simulations. Thus, the term “sim skin” has not been clearly defined so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to redefine the term (see MPEP 2173.05(a)). If Applicant acts as their own lexicographer, they must clearly redefine define the term and put a reasonable competitor on notice that the patentee intended to define the term.
Regarding the argument that the rejection reflect improper hindsight reconstruction by using Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap (see the first paragraph of page 26 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the argument that there is no articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the features in the specific manner claimed (see the first paragraph of page 26 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Each combination included an articulated reason. Which specific reference(s) does Applicant believe had no articulated reason?
Regarding the argument that the rejection fails to consider the claimed invention as a whole, instead treating the claims as a checklist (see the second paragraph of page 26 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention was considered as a whole.
Regarding the argument that the Office Action characterizes Van Den Eerenbeemd’s metadata player as the claimed “control centre” despite the absence of disclosure that it determines sensory events based on received sensory-related data and orchestrates synergistic multi-modal stimulation as required by the claim; the prior art does not disclose the claimed profile selector with user profile data residing on a memory chip; nor a removable “sim skin” garment selected from female, male, and unisex components and sizes (see the first full paragraph of page 27 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Each claim limitation was considered, and addressed in the 103 rejection(s) above.
Regarding the argument that as described in Applicant’s Specification, sensory events are not merely actuator activations but structured coordination of multiple stimulation modalities, such as electrical muscle stimulation, audio, force feedback, compression/constriction, airflow, and temperature, within a defined system architecture, while Van Den Eerenbeemd’s metadata player simply reproduces pre-authored tactile patterns for emotional reinforcement, thus not determining sensory events based on received sensory-related data in the claimed manner, nor disclosing coordinated multi-modal stimulation pathways producing defined sensory outcomes (see the last paragraph of page 27 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 28), this argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s paragraph [0117] states a “Sensory Event may be used herein to relate to any single or simultaneous Sensory Device (SD) activation which produces Sensory Stimulations or Sensory Manipulation.” Thus, the sensory events are merely actuator activations. The “Sensory Stimulations” and “Sensory Manipulations” have very broad definitions as provided by para. [0115]-[0116]. If the body sees, smells, hears, tastes, feels the actuation, “for a specific purpose or outcome” then it reads on a sensory event. As already outlined in the 103 rejection(s) above, Van Den Eerenbeemd provides a variety of stimulations that are sensed/perceived by the user, for a specific purpose.
Regarding the argument that while Mar discloses multiple actuator types, it does not disclose the claimed event-driven architecture in which a control centre determines sensory events defining synergistic actions of multiple stimulation modalities as a signal pathway producing coordinated physiological outcomes (see the second paragraph of page 28 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is unclear what Applicant means by the “event-driven architecture.” The “Sensory Events” described by Applicant are merely actuator activations (see para. [0117]). Van Den Eerenbeemd and Mar have a variety of actuator activations that produce sensory perceptions. Which specific limitation does Applicant believe is not taught by the combined references?
Regarding the argument that as described in the specification, the sensory events are structured system-level control constructs that coordinate multiple stimulation modalities (e.g., electrical muscle stimulation, audio, haptic feedback, force feedback, compression/constriction, airflow, and temperature stimulation) to induce defined physiological responses or sensory perceptions (see the third paragraph of page 28 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The “Sensory Events” described by Applicant are merely actuator activations (see para. [0117]). Van Den Eerenbeemd and Mar describe a variety of actuators, and Mar specifically teaches coordinating multiple stimulation modalities (e.g., electrical muscle stimulation and vibration forces) to induce physiological responses or sensory perceptions (see the 103 rejection(s) above).
Regarding the argument that the cited references do not disclose the claimed integrated control centre, and rather disclose isolated functionalities but not the integrated architecture (see the third paragraph of page 28 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument that the cited art does not disclose the specifically defined computing architecture described in Applicant’s disclosure, and instead discloses isolated functionalities without teaching an integrated architecture (see the last paragraph of page 28 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “computing architecture described in Applicant’s disclosure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the argument that the mapping set forth in the Office Action effectively equates generic processors, communications modules, and actuators across unrelated references with Applicant’s specifically claimed coordinated control architecture, exceeding the broadest reasonable interpretation (see the first paragraph of page 29 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding the argument that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed profile selector with user profile data residing on a memory chip for controlling personalized sensory feedback, as Applicant’s Specification describes user-specific settings that define sensory event parameters and enable personalization across systems (see the second paragraph of page 29 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Mullen clearly does disclose a profile selector with user profile data residing on a memory chip. Which limitation in the claim is not taught?
Regarding the argument that the claims are directed to user-specific sensory personalization stored in memory and used to determine sensory event parameters across multiple stimulation modalities, and Mullen does not suggest portable user profiles controlling a multi-modal wearable sensory system (see the third paragraph of page 29 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The claims merely require the ability to select different user profiles, each having different sensory feedback (i.e., a at least one difference existing between respective profiles), with the profiles residing on a memory chip. This is taught by Mullen. It is unclear what Applicant means by “portable user profiles” as that term does not appear in the claims nor specification.
Regarding the argument that Mullen does not teach the claimed removable sim skin selected from female, male, and unisex components and sizes because Mullen’s removable jacket merely conceals therapeutic compression hardware and lacks the modular, gender-specific sim skin configuration or its functional integration with a multi-modal sensory stimulation garment (see the fourth paragraph of page 29 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “modular, gender-specific sim skin” “functional integration with a multi-modal sensory stimulation garment”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Mullen’s jacket reads on a removable sim skin (jacket 302 is a wearable material, removably secured via “hook fasteners 304-307 that cooperate with corresponding loop fasteners 308-311” see Fig. 3 and para. [0044]) covering the outside of said wearable garment (102, see Fig. 3), said sim skin (302) is selected from female, male and unisex components (loop fasteners 308-311 are “female” components that mate with “male” hooks 304-307) and sizes (the jacket is necessarily either female, male, or unisex in its size).
Regarding the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret the “male” and “female” fastening elements of hook-and-loop fasteners as corresponding to the claimed female, male, and unisex garment components, which in the context of the claim refers to a wearable garment configuration rather than mechanical fastening structures (see the fourth paragraph of page 29 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The claims do not require the sim skin to have a male, female, or unisex design. However, even if the claims were amended to require such a design, Mullen’s jacket would necessarily have at least one of a male, female, or unisex design. It is reiterated the claims do not require a modular group of sim skins that each have different sizes and designs and are interchangeable.
Regarding the argument that the Office Action does not provide an adequate motivation to combine the cited references, and does not articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these disparate systems to arrive at the claimed wearable sensory manipulation garment (see the last two lines of page 29, through the first paragraph of page 30 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. As already stated above, each combination included an articulated reason. Which specific reference(s) does Applicant believe had no articulated reason?
Regarding the argument that the cited references address fundamentally different objectives, and operate in different technical contexts and the Office Action’s generalized benefits such as enhanced feedback or aesthetic improvements do not establish a reasoned motivation to combine these disparate systems (see the second paragraph of page 30 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is reiterated that every time a reference was added in the 103 rejection(s), an articulated reason was provided.
Regarding the argument that absent hindsight knowledge of Applicant’s disclosure, there is no persuasive rationale for modifying an emotional tactile playback garment with EMS gaming feedback, physiological monitoring communications, and therapeutic compression garment features to arrive at the claimed invention … and the Office Action maps individual claim elements, relying on piecemeal reconstruction rather than a coherent teaching or suggestion (see the second and third paragraphs of page 30 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the argument that Thorner does not disclose or suggest storing personalized settings that determine maximum and minimum sensations for sensory stimulations, as described in Applicant’s Specification (see the last two paragraphs of page 31 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multi-modal personalized sensory envelopes … [and] a memory-chip-resident personalization system governing coordinated sensory events across multiple stimulation modalities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Thorner does not need to disclose every limitation of the claim in order to be relied upon as a teaching reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that maximum and minimum settings can be stored. This is a straightforward concept that can be easily integrated into Van Den Eerenbeemd’s wearable garment.
Regarding the argument that Van Den Eerenbeemd’s metadata editor does not disclose persistent user-specific sensation envelopes or integration with a multi-modal control centre architecture (see the first paragraph of page 32 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Thorner was relied upon for the feature of personalized settings that determine maximum and minimum sensations.
Regarding the argument that the Office Action’s rationale for combination, allowing users to avoid re-entering preferences, addresses only generic convenience customization and does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified each cited reference (see the second paragraph of page 32 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Convenience and customization is a clear motivation to combine.
Regarding the argument that Chappell’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed architectural relationship between the input module and the plurality of sensory devices, and that Applicant’s specification describes a closed-loop sensory manipulation architecture in which sensory stimulation and physiological response data are integrated within the control centre to dynamically coordinate multi-modal stimulation pathways (see the second through fourth paragraphs of page 33 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Chappell does not need to disclose every limitation of the claim to be relied upon as a teaching reference. Furthermore, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that the rationale stated in the Office Action of reducing garment complexity does not address the claimed functional relationship between the input module, sensory devices, and control centre (see the penultimate paragraph of page 33 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection, this would eliminate the need for at least some of the additional sensors. This reduces the relative complexity of the garment.
Regarding the argument that even if dual-use electrodes were incorporated into the cited systems, the resulting device would still lack the closed-loop sensory event architecture recited in claim 7 (see the penultimate paragraph of page 33 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Which exact claim limitation is missing?
Regarding the argument that Seiler’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed removable sensory devices within Applicant’s integrated sensory event architecture (see the penultimate paragraph of page 34 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Seiler does not need to disclose every limitation of the claim to be relied upon as a teaching reference.
Regarding the argument that Applicant’s specification describes the removable sensory devices are positioned in predetermined locations within a coordinated sensory event framework, where device placement and configuration have architectural significance in generating defined multi-modal sensory events and outcomes (see the last paragraph of page 34 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 35), this argument is not persuasive. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The claims do not recite any particular placement of the sensory devices for any particular sensory event or outcome.
Regarding the argument that Seiler does not teach or suggest removability of such an integrated control architecture and maintaining functional coordination between removable system components within a sensory event framework (see the second paragraph of page 35 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Seiler does not need to disclose every limitation of the claim in order to be relied upon as a teaching reference.
Regarding the argument that Minogue’s disclosure is directed to therapeutic electrical stimulation garments in which locating marks primarily facilitate electrode placement for accommodating anatomical variation among users, and does not address the architectural placement framework recited in claim 16 (see the second paragraph of page 36 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 16 merely requires adjustable sensory devices with visual indicators for accurate placement. Minogue accommodating anatomical variation among users allows for accurate placement.
Regarding the argument that the Specification describes the claimed visual indicators serve to ensure reproducible placement of sensory devices across defined garment regions, not merely for comfort or anatomical fit but to correspond to defined sensory signatures and signal pathways within a multi-modal stimulation system (see the last two paragraphs of page 36 of the Remarks through the first paragraph of page 37), this argument is not persuasive. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Furthermore, Minogue’s visual indicators also ensure the electrical stimulators are applied to suitable locations.
Regarding the argument that Li’s disclosure does not teach the architectural placement framework recited in claim 17 (see the last full paragraph of page 37, through the first two paragraphs of page 38 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Li does not need to teach every limitation of the claim in order to be relied upon as a teaching reference.
Regarding the argument that Longinotti-Buitoni does not teach the claimed architectural role of speakers as sensory devices within Applicant’s multi-modal sensory event framework (see the first three full paragraphs of page 39 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Longinotti-Buitoni does not need to teach every limitation of the claim in order to be relied upon as a teaching reference.
Regarding the argument that the rationale that garment-mounted speakers allow users to listen without disturbing others addresses general convenience but does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would incorporate such a device into the cited system in a manner consistent with Applicant’s coordinated sensory architecture (see the last paragraph of page 39 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The prior art does not need to have the same reason for combination as Applicant.
Regarding the argument that even if Longinotti-Buitoni’s speakers were incorporated into the device, the resulting system would not exhibit the claimed integration of audio output as a sensory device within defined multi-modal sensory events (see the last paragraph of page 39 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Van Den Eerenbeemd already provides audio output as part of a multi-modal sensory event. Longinotti-Buitoni merely provides the speakers in the garment for the convenience rationale mentioned, rather than being standalone speakers.
Regarding the argument that Ling and Longinotti-Buitoni do not teach the claimed amplifier, transmitter, and receiver architecture as recited in claim 19 because Ling’s disclosure is not integrated into a coordinated sensory event system, and Longinotti-Buitoni’s amplifier is not associated with audio delivery or coordinated multi-modal sensory event execution (see the last paragraph of page 40 of the Remarks, through the second full paragraph of page 41 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Ling and Longinotti-Buitoni do not need to disclose every limitation of the claim in order to be relied upon as teaching references.
Regarding the argument that as described in Applicant’s specification, the claimed MCEIATR is not merely a stimulation unit or signal-conditioning component, but rather a computing device configured to (i) provide electrical stimulation to the physiology, (ii) receive physiological data from the user, and (iii) wirelessly transmit such data within a unified system architecture supporting coordinated sensory event functionality, enabling closed-loop physiological interaction and coordinated multi-modal stimulation within the wearable system (see the first two paragraphs of page 42 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 30 is very broad. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that Fritzsche’s stimulation unit is not described as performing this integrated computing functionality such as the specifically claimed integrated computing device architecture (see the fourth paragraph of page 42 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. What exact claim limitation is missing from the claim 30 rejection?
Regarding the argument that Campos’s amplifier would not transform the system into the claimed medically compliant MCEIATR architecture, as Campos does not disclose integration of amplification with physiological data acquisition, wireless data transmission, or unified computing control of stimulation events as recited in claim 30 (see the penultimate paragraph of page 42 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Claim 30 merely requires an amplifier, and does not provide any explanation whatsoever of how the amplifier is used. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that the Fritzsche/Campos combination does not demonstrate how the proposed combination would result in Applicant’s integrated computing architecture and that absent hindsight reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as a guide, the cited references do not teach or suggest the MCEIATR system (see the first paragraph of page 43 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The prior art merely needs to read on the claim language. What exact claim limitation is missing from the claim 30 rejection?
Regarding the argument that there is an extensive combination of references, underscoring that the claimed invention is not suggested by any coherent teaching and instead reflects hindsight reconstruction (See the last paragraph of page 43 of the Remarks, through the first paragraph of page 44), this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the argument that the cited references fail to teach or suggest several core aspects of the unified wearable sensory architecture as described in the Specification (See the first full paragraph of page 44 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that the cited references do not teach the defined medically compliant electrical impulse architecture described in the Specification (see the second full paragraph of page 44 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding the argument that the references fail to teach the claimed memory-chip-based user profile architecture, as Mullen does not disclose persistent multi-modal personalization integrated with coordinated sensory event determination as recited in the claims (see the third full paragraph of page 44 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Which exact claim limitation is missing? Mullen clearly read on the claim language, as outlined in the 103 rejection(s) above.
Regarding the argument that the cited art does not teach the modular “sim skin” architecture described in the Specification (see the fourth full paragraph of page 44 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. There is no clearly set out definition of “sim skin” and the claims do not require a modular sim skin.
Regarding the argument that the cited references address different technical objectives and do not suggest the unified sensory manipulation architecture recited in claim 31 (see the last paragraph of page 44 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. The references do not need to share a singular “technical objective,” nor do they each need to disclose a “unified sensory manipulation architecture.”
Regarding the argument that the rejection relies on improper hindsight (see the first paragraph of page 45 of the Remarks), this argument is not persuasive. It is reiterated that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 CHRISTOPHER E MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1473. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 (Eastern).
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785