DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species Embodiment D in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is considerable overlapping subject matter between the species and would not be a serious burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because although the claims in their current form may have considerable overlap, the applicant has already detailed in the instant specification that these are different embodiments requiring different structures as detailed in [0029] and this ensures that the chosen embodiment is the only embodiment examined through the course of prosecution as amendments are made.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant specification details in [0029] “The transparent section can be an “outer surface” of the sock 102 or it can be located such that it’s covered by an outer flap 402 as shown in Fig 4. By providing the outer flap 402, the sensor bed can be held in place between the flap 402 and the transparent section 106a.” However, Fig 4 doesn’t appear to show the outer flap covering the transparent section as it appears that the sensor bed is in between the transparent section and the flap being below. Clarity to the specification is requested.
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 3, 9 and 15 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.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 recite the limitation "the sensors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 contains the limitation wherein the sensors can measure one or more of temperature and heart rate. However, it is unclear if there is one biometric sensor (hence one optical sensor) on the sensor bed if that one optical sensor is able to capture both temperature and heart rates and what light frequency is used and what type of emitter is able to read that frequency in order to determine temperature and heart rate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6, 12 and 18 are duplicates of claim 3, 9 and 15 and fail to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mannheimer (US 5,842,982)
Regarding claim 1, Mannheimer discloses a biometric monitoring system for monitoring the health of user (e.g. abstract), the system comprising: an article of clothing configured for placement over or contacting a foot of user (e.g. Fig 7:52 col 4 lines 38-56), the article of clothing including: a body portion (e.g. Fig 7:52 col 4 lines 38-56); a transparent sole portion connected to the body portion and arranged such than the body portion is place over the foot of the user the transparent sole portion is arranged on or near a sole of the foot of the user (e.g. Fig 7:56 “a pocket 56 on the bottom of the foot” ); a sensor bed arranged and configured to contact the sole portion (e.g. col 3 lines 10-15 and col 4 lines 40-42 “The emitter and detector can be inserted into the pockets and connected to cable 16”); and one or more biometric sensors on the sensor bed arranged and configured to transmit light through the transparent sole portion so that it contacts the sole of the foot of the user and receive one or more reflected signals from the sole of the foot of the user to measure the health of the user (e.g. col 3 lines 10-15, col 4 lines 40-42 and col 7 lines 38-56 Fig 7).
Regarding claim 13, Mannheimer discloses A method of monitoring a health of user (e.g. abstract), the method comprising: placing an article of clothing on a foot of user (e.g. Fig 7:52 col 4 lines 38-56), the article including: a body portion (e.g. Fig 7:52 col 4 lines 38-56); and a transparent sole portion connected to the body portion and arranged such than the body portion is place over the foot of the user the transparent sole portion is arranged on or near a sole of the foot of the user (e.g. Fig 7:56 “a pocket 56 on the bottom of the foot” ); providing a sensor bed that includes one or more biometric sensors (e.g. col 3 lines 10-15 and col 4 lines 40-42 “The emitter and detector can be inserted into the pockets and connected to cable 16); arranging the sensor bed relative to the article of clothing such that the biometric sensors transmits light through the transparent sole portion so that it contacts the sole of the foot of the user and receive one or more reflected signals from the sole of the foot of the user to measure (e.g. col 3 lines 10-15, col 4 lines 40-42 and col 7 lines 38-56 Fig 7).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Mannheimer discloses wherein the biometric sensors are optical sensors (e.g. col 3 lines 10-15 and col 4 lines 40-42 “The emitter and detector can be inserted into the pockets and connected to cable 16”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Mannheimer discloses wherein the transparent sole portion is completely transparent (e.g. col 4 lines 44-45).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Mannheimer discloses wherein the transparent sole portion is partially transparent and allows light from the optical sensors to pass through it (e.g. col 4 lines 42-47 mesh allows partial transparency).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheimer in view of Hu (US 2016/0278646 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18, Mannheimer is silent regarding wherein the sensors can measure one or more of temperature and heart rate.
However, Hu discloses an opto-physiological sensor and method wherein the biometric/optical sensors can measure one or more of temperature and heart rate (e.g. [0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system and method of Mannheimer to incorporate the teachings of Hu wherein the biometric/optical sensors can measure one or more of temperature and heart rate for the purpose of utilizing a known signal processing analyser to separate and measure the signals acquired by the photodetector (e.g. Hu [0151])
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheimer in view of Fu (US 2022/0175317 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Mannheimer is silent regarding further comprising: a flap arranged such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the transparent sole portion.
However, Fu discloses a sensing garment and method to be placed on a foot to monitor a user utilizing a sensor arrangement further comprising a cover arranged such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the garment sole portion (e.g. [0068]-[0069] Fig 3:300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Mannheimer to incorporate the teachings of Fu further comprising a cover arranged such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the transparent sole portion already disclosed in Mannheimer for the purpose of securing the sensors to the user (e.g. Fu [0068]-[0069]).
Modified Mannheimer is silent regarding the cover being a flap; however, this appears to be merely a design choice. Furthermore, Fu discloses wherein the cover is utilized to “sandwich” the sensor arrangement between the garment and cover which essentially is the same goal of the flap (e.g. Fu [0068]) and details that the cover may be attaches to the garment utilizing adhesive, sutures or fasteners which would essentially make it a flap (e.g. Fu [0069]). Additionally, the instant specification details in [0029] that this is an outer flap that can be permanently affixed or have a portion that opens to receive the sensor bed.
Therefore, this appears to merely be a design choice to make a change in shape in order for the cover to be a flap and one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the desired shape in order to maintain the same result of covering the sensor arrangement. See MPEP 2144.04 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Mannheimer discloses wherein the biometric sensors are optical sensors (e.g. Mannheimer col 3 lines 10-15 and col 4 lines 40-42 “The emitter and detector can be inserted into the pockets and connected to cable 16”).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Mannheimer discloses wherein the transparent sole portion is completely transparent (e.g. Mannheimer col 4 lines 44-45).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Mannheimer discloses wherein the transparent sole portion is partially transparent and allows light from the optical sensors to pass through it (e.g. Mannheimer col 4 lines 42-47 mesh allows partial transparency).
Regarding claim 19, Mannheimer is silent regarding further comprising: arranging a flap on the article such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the transparent sole portion.
However, Fu discloses a sensing garment and method to be placed on a foot to monitor a user utilizing a sensor arrangement further comprising a cover arranging a flap on the article such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the garment sole portion (e.g. [0068]-[0069] Fig 3:300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Mannheimer to incorporate the teachings of Fu further comprising a cover arranged such that the sensor bed can be partially surrounded by and secured within the flap when it is contacting or near the transparent sole portion already disclosed in Mannheimer for the purpose of securing the sensors to the user (e.g. Fu [0068]-[0069]).
Modified Mannheimer is silent regarding the cover being a flap; however, this appears to be merely a design choice. Furthermore, Fu discloses wherein the cover is utilized to “sandwich” the sensor arrangement between the garment and cover which essentially is the same goal of the flap (e.g. Fu [0068]) and details that the cover may be attaches to the garment utilizing adhesive, sutures or fasteners which would essentially make it a flap (e.g. Fu [0069]). Additionally, the instant specification details in [0029] that this is an outer flap that can be permanently affixed or have a portion that opens to receive the sensor bed.
Therefore, this appears to merely be a design choice to make a change in shape in order for the cover to be a flap and one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the desired shape in order to maintain the same result of covering the sensor arrangement. See MPEP 2144.04 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough May 14, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights