DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with claims 15-17 being withdrawn via the Election on 05/13/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because again, the apparatus of claim 1/13 (group I) can utilize a drastically different method of use and both are able to be patented separately. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made Final. With that said, if claim 1 is found to be allowable, with how the dependency is written, claim 15 would be rejoined and allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer et al. US Publication 2017/0079590 (hereinafter Batzer) in view of Boyer et al. US Patent 9,421,884 (hereinafter Boyer) and in further view of Giesel et al. US Publication 2004/0012499 (hereinafter Giesel).
Regarding claim 1, Batzer discloses a measurement system for measuring bio-electric signals from a patient ([0043] which details monitoring ECG signals), comprising: a sensor electrode (0043] which details the use of an ECG system which would inherently have to include multiple sensor electrodes); and a mechanical mounting for the sensor electrode (elements 11-12, 15, see Figures 3-4), the mechanical mounting being compressible at least partially by a weight of the patient (15 is a plastic foam and is able to be compressed under load), the mechanical mounting including a frame structure (11 and/or 12 which are more rigid plate/table) and a compressible supporting structure (15), wherein the mechanical mounting is attachable to a substrate of the measurement system to support the sensor electrode against the substrate (table 11 can be considered a substrate: a foundation on which other materials, circuits, or coatings are deposited – Google dictionary), the compressible supporting structure is beneath the sensor electrode ([0043] which details that the ECG system can be arranged on the overlay 15, though the language is ambiguous as to whether it is within the recess on 15 or just the conductors are within it), the frame structure at least partially surrounds the compressible supporting structure (Figures 3-4 where 15 is at least partially surrounded by 12), in an unloaded state, the compressible supporting structure protrudes beyond the frame structure (Figures 3-4 shows 15 protruding beyond the confines of 12), wherein the compressible supporting structure is conductive (claim 15), the compressible supporting structure is covered in a direction of the sensor electrode and in a direction of the substrate by a first upper conductive layer and a first lower conductive layer (the second layer of the multilayered 15 can be covered by a first and third layer upper/lower layers and can be made of conductive foam as per [0060]-[0061]), respectively, the first upper conductive layer and the first lower conductive layer form first conductive layers ([0060]-[0061] and claim 14), and though technically capable of acting as such given the structure, does not explicitly detail being configured to generate a voltage drop.
Again, the detail is light on the plastic foam formally being compressible (there are degrees based on the manufacturing process). Boyer teaches a pressure-responsive seat sensor that includes a similar architecture with the compressible supporting structure (18 which is clearly defined as compressible foam) is positioned above the support area of the frame structure (16), where the compression is shown between an unloaded and loaded state (Figures 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the compressible foam (compressible supporting structure) with frame as taught by Boyer with the plastic foam of Batzer in order to provide a complaint patient-support structure capable of being compressed (aid in comfort during use, and in the case of Batzer also aids in maintaining contact with the user).
Though Batzer teaches monitoring a voltage differential ([0043][0062][0063]), Gisele teaches an occupant-presence sensing device that includes conductive layers on opposing sides of a conductive compressible structure where compression changes the electrical resistance of the structure where a voltage drop can be monitored (conductive foamed plastic 9 with electrodes 10-11 on the top and bottom sides, where the voltage drop is generated from the layers as per [0021]-[0023]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the additional functionality as taught by Giesel with the device of Batzer in order to provide an electrical indication of the patient’s loading (positioning and contact).
Regarding claims 2-3, Batzer for the same reasons as above teaches the foam supporting structure (which is conductive foam as per [0039] and could be compressible), but does not go into further detail on the level it can or cannot compress. Boyer teaches a compressible supporting structure that has a lower hardness than the frame structure (Figures 1-2 which shows that the compressible foam 18 compresses around the frame 16, which could not be possible if it was equally or of a higher hardness). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the compressible foam (compressible supporting structure) with frame as taught by Boyer with the plastic foam of Batzer in order to provide a patient-support structure capable of being compressed (aid in comfort during use, and in the case of Batzer also aids in maintaining contact with the user).
Regarding claim 4, Batzer discloses that the first conductive layers comprise a conductive plastic (claims 30-31).
Regarding claim 5, Batzer as modified by Boyer teaches the compressible foam but are both silent on the exact ohmic resistance in the unloaded state. Giesel does not cure this deficiency. With that said, the Applicant includes no criticality why the range is required, and given that the device of the prior art of record (above) are in the same field of endeavor as the present application, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have an ohmic resistance in an unloaded state between 100 kilohms and 1000 kilohms as a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Batzer as modified by Boyer and Giesel teach the compressible supporting structure (as well as the conductive layers) can be a carbon-enriched material (Batzer [0060]) but does not explicitly detail the % volume. The Applicant has disclosed no criticality as to the claimed 20-50% by volume of carbon. Therefore, given that the devices are in the same field of endeavor and are used for the same general purpose, it would have been obvious to optimize the volume of carbon to 20-50% as a matter of design choice given routine experimentation. How much carbon is in a conductive material can affect transparency and level of resistance/conductivity, all of which would have yielded predictable results being a result-effective variable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer in view of Boyer and Giesel, and in further view of Schousek US Patent 5,959,538 (hereinafter Schousek).
Regarding claim 6, Batzer is silent on the computing unit as claimed. Giesel teaches that compression of conductive foam produces a corresponding change in resistance and that the resistance is dependent on the weight applied to the foam along with the comparison of the resistance with threshold values to distinguish different applied weights ([0022]-[0023]), but is also silent on those calculations based on a current impinged onto the compressible structure via the conducting layers.
Schousek teaches a force sensing circuit that includes a computing unit configured to determine, under a patient load, a first prevailing compression force based on a current impinged onto the compressible supporting structure via the first conductive layers, and the voltage drop across the compressible supporting structure (claims 1 and 41, column 4 lines 1-13 and 35-45, and column 7 lines 45-55). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the computing unit as taught by Schousek with the device of Batzer, Boyer, and Giesel in order to reduce cost by utilizing simpler, single-rail instrumentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer in view of Boyer and Giesel, and in further view of Eventoff US Patent 4,489,302 (hereinafter Eventoff).
Regarding claim 7, Batzer is silent on the claimed sizing. Eventoff teaches an electronic pressure sensitive force transducer that includes a first conductive layer (62) having a height in a range of 20-50microns (column 4 lines 35-42, which details a thickness of 25.4microns or less). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the first layer’s thickness as taught by Eventoff with the conductive layer of Batzer in order to minimize surface irregularities and conserve material (from Eventoff column 4 lines 35-42).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer in view of Boyer and Giesel, and in further view of Boge et al. US Publication 2019/0167198 (hereinafter Boge).
Regarding claims 12-13, Batzer as modified by Boyer and Giesel discloses a signal measurement circuit for a differential voltage measurement system (above in rejected claim 1), comprising: the measurement system of claim 1 (as mentioned above in rejected claim 1). Batzer additionally teaches a measurement amplifier circuit ([0003]-[0004] which details the differential measuring system); and a sensor line between the measurement amplifier circuit and the sensor electrode (lines M1-2 as per Figure 8). The general differential measuring system (for ECG) requires the use of a differential amplifier, however, Batzer doesn’t explicitly mention this circuit, nor are there multiple circuits along a wanted-signal path.
Boge teaches a capacitive ECG sensing device that includes the sensor electrodes (30, Figures 1 and 3) connected to amplifier circuits (31, [0059]) which are connected to the electrodes with a sensor line (Figure 3 which shows the circuit diagram of the input leading from the electrodes 30 to the amps 31). Boge further teaches multiple circuits along the wanted-signal path (Figure 3, where one can be the A/D 34 or the gain at 33), where one of the at least two signal measurement circuits comprises the measurement system of claim 1 (as mentioned above in rejected claim 1; the circuits shown in Boge are needed for weak biological signals). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the additional circuits as taught by Boge with the ECG system of Batzer as predictable results would have ensued (processing weak biological signals for viewing; the additional circuitry spelled out in Boge is required for Batzer to function as disclosed). The motivation to combine both Boyer and Giesel (for the measurement system of claim 1) can be found above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer in view of Boyer, Giesel, Boge, and in further view of Kovtun et al. US Patent 6,510,339 (hereinafter Kovtun).
Regarding claim 14, Batzer as modified by Boyer, Giesel, and Boge are silent on the additional control apparatus. Kovtun teaches a measurement circuit (applicable to more than just ECG devices, as per column 3 lines 25-30) a control apparatus (20, specifically processor 16 part of 20) configured to acquire from a computing unit via at least one interface unit at least one of at least one first prevailing compression force or at least one second prevailing compression force (column 4 lines 15-20, where ethe processing is the same but the compression force is monitored by Boyer/Giesel above), the control apparatus configured to compare each of the at least one of at least one first prevailing compression force or at least one second prevailing compression force with at least one of at least one predefined first threshold value or at least one second force threshold value (column 5 lines 41-49 which details comparing against thresholds), and produce, based on the comparison, an output signal for an operator (claims 1, 8), the output signal comprising a control signal for parameterizing at least one of the at least two signal measurement circuits (column 5 lines 31-41, see also Abstract, which detail increasing or decreasing the gain setting and is being read as parameterizing of the circuit of claim 13 which is rendered obvious above). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the measurement circuit as taught by Kovtun with the combination of Batzer, Boyer, Giesel, and Boge in order to aid in automating the sensitivity adjustment for the signals of Batzer et al.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batzer in view of Boyer and Giesel, and in further view of Schousek and Eventoff.
Regarding claim 18, see contents of rejected claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, see contents of rejected claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 9 and 20 include the same allowable subject matter of utilizing the carrier structure as part of the mechanical mounting, specifically in that the carrier structure is compressible by the weight of the patient and extending beneath the compressible supporting structure and the frame structure, the carrier structure being conductive and covered in the direction of the sensor electrode and in the direction of the substrate by second conductive layers, respectively, to acquire a voltage drop across the carrier structure. Batzer teaches utilizing multiple layers, including multiple conductive plastic foams (compressibility being rendered obvious above via Boyer), however those layers are already part of the required system of claim 1. There would not have been a reasonable reason to simply apply the additional conductive layers at the claimed location without materially altering the above combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights