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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges that no new amendments have been made to the claims. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tomita (US Patent No 20180338719).
Regarding claim 1, Tomita teaches a dermal sensor (biological sensor 100, [0057]) comprising: an electrode support structure including: at least one multi-material support structure first layer (see the fig 4 for a first sheet layer 1, [0057]); at least one multi-material support structure second layer positioned opposite the first layer (see from the fig 4 the second sheet layer 4 which is found opposite the first sheet 1 and contacts the skin layer, [0057], in which both the layer 1 and 4 are comprised of multiple layers of materials for example layer material 10b and 11b, thereby being multi-material); and a plurality of connecting walls extending between and connecting the at least one support structure first layer and the at least one support structure second layer (see from figure 4 the projections 2 which are formed which connect both the first layer 1 to the second layer 4, [0057], and therefore the projections 2 are equated to the connecting wall structure); and at least a pair of spaced-apart electrodes supported by the support structure (see from the fig 3, all of the electrodes or conductive patterns 3 are found on the individual projections 2, thereby spaced apart and found on the support structure).
Regarding claim 2, Tomita teaches the sensor claim 1, wherein the electrodes are formed integrally with the electrode support structure (see from [0069], in which the multiple projections 2 or support structure contain conductive patterns 3 which create the electrodes 4 within the contact face of the projection 2, see also [0078], in which the conductive patterns ar4e to be completely covered by the projections 2 and thereby the electrode structure is integrally formed in the support structure).
Regarding claim 3, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the electrodes are operably connected to the electrode support structure after being formed separately from the electrode support structure (see from Tomita [0093], in which the multiple electrodes 4 are formed on the second sheet structure 11, which is molded to the overall sensor 100 after the first sheet 10, therefore the electrodes are formed on the support structure separately from the main sensor support 100).
Regarding claim 6, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1 wherein the electrode support structure comprises a plurality of support structure unit cells attached end-to-end (see from the fig 8, in which each one of the projections 2 can be analyzed as its own unit cell support structure and therefore containing a multiplicity of unit cells attached to each other end to end).
Regarding claim 7, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 6 wherein each support structure unit cell includes: a multi-material unit cell first layer (see the fig 4 for a first sheet layer 1, [0057]); a multi-material unit cell second layer positioned opposite the unit cell first layer (see from the fig 4 the second sheet layer 4 which is found opposite the first sheet 1 and contacts the skin layer, [0057], in which both the layer 1 and 4 are comprised of multiple layers of materials for example layer material 10b and 11b, thereby being multi-material); and a plurality of connecting walls extending between and connecting the unit cell first layer and the unit cell second layer (see from figure 4 the projections 2 which are formed which connect both the first layer 1 to the second layer 4, [0057], and therefore the projections 2 are equated to the connecting wall structure).
Regarding claim 9, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 7, wherein each multi-material unit cell layer comprises a pair of connecting walls extending between and connecting the unit cell first layer and the unit cell second layer (see from figure 10 the projections 2d which are formed which connect both the first layer 1b to the second layer 4b, [0104], and therefore the projections 2d are equated to the connecting wall structure, in which it can be seen in figure 10 that there are two walls therefore equating to the pair).
Regarding claim 10, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein each connecting wall is formed from a relatively flexible material (wherein each of the multiple projections 2, equated to the connecting wall is formed of an elastic or flexible structure, [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein each connecting wall includes: a first end fixedly attached to the support structure first layer along a flexible section of the first layer; and a second end opposite first end and fixedly attached to the support structure second layer along a flexible section of the second layer (see from figure 10 the projections 2d which are formed which fixedly connect both the first layer 1b to the second layer 4b, [0104], and therefore the projections 2d are equated to the connecting wall structure. Furthermore, Tomita discloses that both the first sheet and second sheet have flexibility or stretchability, [0008], and that the multiple projections 2, equated to the connecting wall is formed of an elastic or flexible structure, [0036], and therefore all components are attached via the flexible sections).
Regarding claim 14, Tomita teaches a wearable device comprising: an attachment structure structured to be wearable by a user (see in which the biological sensor 100 is configured to be attached to a cloth 7 which is wearable by a user, [0061]); and a dermal sensor attached to the attachment structure (biological sensor 100, [0057]) and including: an electrode support structure having a multi-material support structure first layer (see the fig 10b first sheet layer 1b, [0099]), a multi-material support structure second layer positioned opposite the first layer (see from the fig 10b the second sheet layer 4b, [0099], which is found opposite the first layer, in which both the layer 1 and 4 are comprised of multiple layers of materials for example layer material 10b and 11b, thereby being multi-material), and a plurality of connecting walls extending between and connecting the support structure first layer and the support structure second layer (see from figure 10 the projections 2d which are formed which connect both the first layer 1b to the second layer 4b, [0104], and therefore the projections 2d are equated to the connecting wall structure); and at least a pair of spaced-apart electrodes supported by the support structure (see from the fig 3, all of the electrodes or conductive patterns 3 are found on the individual projections 2, thereby spaced apart and found on the support structure).
Regarding claim 16, Tomita teaches the wearable device of claim 14, wherein a surface of a first electrode structured to contact a skin surface of a user is structured to be coplanar with a surface of a second electrode structured to contact the skin surface of the user (see from example figs 1, 3 and 4 which all show examples of how the projections 2 which contain the electrodes 4 created by the conductive traces 3 are manufactured to the same thickness and therefore the at least first and second electrodes are coplanar when coming into contact with the skin surface).
Regarding claim 17, Tomita teaches the wearable device of claim 16, wherein a plane defined by a surface of an electrode support structure separating the first electrode from the second electrode is spaced apart from a plane including the surface of the first electrode and the surface of the second electrode (see from the fig 3, all of the electrode surfaces 4 are found on the individual projections 2, thereby spaced apart from each other and found on different separating planes of each individual projection or wall).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US Patent No 20180338719) in view of Chen (ScienceDirect Web article).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1.
Tomita does not explicitly state wherein the electrode support structure is structured to provide a quasi-zero/negative stiffness response over at least a first and second predetermined range of displacements of one of the support structure first and second layers in a direction toward the other one of the support structure first and second layers, the second predetermined range of displacements being different from the first predetermined range of displacements.
However, Tomita does teach that the biological sensor structure 100 is shaped to be flexible and conform to the body of the user in order to allow for minimal noise due to body motion, [0062]. Furthermore, the analogous vibration isolator and energy limiting system which is taught by Chen also teaches a support structure (see from Chen fig 2, in which there are two support structure layers opposite of each other) is structured to provide a quasi-zero/negative stiffness response over at least a first and second predetermined range of displacements of one of the support structure first and second layers in a direction toward the other one of the support structure first and second layers, the second predetermined range of displacements being different from the first predetermined range of displacements (see from Chen, Section 4: Numerical Simulations, in which there are ranging displacements and specifically there is a negative stiffness response from the analogous structure when it is displaced anywhere from about 5mm to 15mm, therefore the negative stiffness response is held for a multiplicity of displacement ranges between the direction of the first and second layers, see also fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the quasi-zero stiffness response system taught by Chen in combination with the flexible biological sensor taught by Tomita, in order to continue to create minimal noise as well as minimize low energy absorption and increase vibration control of the sensing structure, as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the sensor of claim 7, wherein each multi-material unit cell layer comprises: at least one flexible section (Tomita, wherein the projections 2 are supposed to have an elastic or flexible structure, which is part of the unit cell, [0061]); and at least one rigid portion attached to the at least one flexible section (from Chen, in which the composite support surfaces are comprised of a soft material and rigid material, seen in fig 2)).
Regarding claim 19, Tomita teaches a dermal sensor (Tomita, biological sensor 100, [0057]) comprising: an electrode support structure including: a first layer (Tomita, see the fig 10b first sheet layer 1b, [0099]), a second layer positioned opposite the first layer (Tomita, see from the fig 10b the second sheet layer 4b, [0099], which is found opposite the first layer, in which both the layer 1 and 4 are comprised of multiple layers of materials for example layer material 10b and 11b, thereby being multi-material), and a plurality of connecting walls extending between and connecting the support structure first layer and the support structure second layer (Tomita, see from figure 10 the projections 2d which are formed which connect both the first layer 1b to the second layer 4b, [0104], and therefore the projections 2d are equated to the connecting wall structure), and at least a pair of spaced-apart electrodes supported by the support structure (Tomita, see from the fig 3, all of the electrodes or conductive patterns 3 are found on the individual projections 2, thereby spaced apart and found on the support structure).
Tomita does not explicitly state wherein the electrode support structure is structured to provide a quasi-zero/negative stiffness response over at least a first and second predetermined range of displacements of one of the support structure first and second layers in a direction toward the other one of the support structure first and second layers, the second predetermined range of displacements being different from the first predetermined range of displacements.
However, Tomita does teach that the biological sensor structure 100 is shaped to be flexible and conform to the body of the user in order to allow for minimal noise due to body motion, [0062]. Furthermore, the analogous vibration isolator and energy limiting system which is taught by Chen also teaches a support structure (see from Chen fig 2, in which there are two support structure layers opposite of each other) is structured to provide a quasi-zero/negative stiffness response over at least a first and second predetermined range of displacements of one of the support structure first and second layers in a direction toward the other one of the support structure first and second layers, the second predetermined range of displacements being different from the first predetermined range of displacements (see from Chen, Section 4: Numerical Simulations, in which there are ranging displacements and specifically there is a negative stiffness response from the analogous structure when it is displaced anywhere from about 5mm to 15mm, therefore the negative stiffness response is held for a multiplicity of displacement ranges between the direction of the first and second layers, see also fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the quasi-zero stiffness response system taught by Chen in combination with the flexible biological sensor taught by Tomita, in order to continue to create minimal noise as well as minimize low energy absorption and increase vibration control of the sensing structure, as taught by Chen.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US Patent No 20180338719) in view of Maclaren (US Patent No 20210077011).
Regarding claim 12, Tomita teaches the sensor of claim 1.
Tomita does not teach further comprising EDA sensor circuitry communicatively coupled to the at least a pair of electrodes and configured to generate an EDA signal responsive to physical contact between the electrodes and a skin surface of a user.
However, the analogous wearable dermal sensor apparatus taught by Maclaren does teach a system further comprising EDA sensor circuitry communicatively coupled to the at least a pair of electrodes (from Maclaren, the electrode pairs 804 has sensing circuitry 871 that can be used in conjunction to form an EDA sensor, [0068]) and configured to generate an EDA signal responsive to physical contact between the electrodes and a skin surface of a user (from Maclaren, the EDA sensor circuitry can measure the contact through one or more dermal layers of the users skin, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the biological sensor device of Tomita, to contain the EDA sensor device disclosed by Maclaren, as an EDA sensor is another known form of biological sensor device to those skilled in the art and would allow for further biological sensing capabilities as taught by Maclaren, [0068].
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the dermal sensor is an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor (from Maclaren, the electrode pairs 804 has sensing circuitry 871 that can be used in conjunction to form an EDA sensor, [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 14, wherein the wearable device is a wrist band (from Maclaren, the consumer wearable products often come in garments such as … wrist-mounted wearable devices, [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 14, wherein the dermal sensor is an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor (from Maclaren, the electrode pairs 804 has sensing circuitry 871 that can be used in conjunction to form an EDA sensor, [0068]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US Patent No 20180338719) in view of Chen (ScienceDirect Web article) further in view of Maclaren (US Patent No 20210077011).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tomita and Chen teach the sensor of claim 19.
The combination does not teach wherein the dermal sensor is an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor.
However, the analogous wearable dermal sensor apparatus taught by Maclaren does teach wherein the dermal sensor is an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor (from Maclaren, the electrode pairs 804 has sensing circuitry 871 that can be used in conjunction to form an EDA sensor, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the biological sensor device of Tomita and Chen, to contain the EDA sensor device disclosed by Maclaren, as an EDA sensor is another known form of biological sensor device to those skilled in the art and would allow for further biological sensing capabilities as taught by Maclaren, [0068].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5 and 19 under Tomita in view of Gandhi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly considered art of Tomita in view of the new prior art of record Chen.
As agreed upon in the prior interview dated 02/27/2026, the arguments presented do overcome the prior art of record as it previously stood and therefore the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, it has been found that the previous prior art of record of Tomita as newly considered and presented in the present office action does still contain enough disclosure to teach the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language. Specifically, in terms of the argument that the previous rejection of Tomita did not teach multiple multi-material support structures has been considered, but after a new consideration of Tomita which includes the sheet layer 1 being the equivalent first layer and the contact layer 4 being the equivalent second layer, in which both the layer 1 and 4 are comprised of multiple layers of materials for example layer material 10b and 11b, thereby being multi-material. Therefore, the newly considered prior art of Tomita contains enough disclosure to teach the claim limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and therefore the claims 1 and 2 remain rejected under the prior art of record rejection in view of Tomita set forth in the present office action.
Furthermore, in regards to the claims 4-5 and 19, the examiner agrees with the applicants remarks that the prior art of Gandhi did not reasonably teach all the limitations of the claim language and therefore the previous rejection of Tomita in view of Gandhi has been withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration it has been found that the new prior art of record Chen does contain disclosure to teach the deficiencies previously found in the previous rejection. Specifically Chen teaches a support structure (see from Chen fig 2, in which there are two support structure layers opposite of each other) is structured to provide a quasi-zero/negative stiffness response over at least a first and second predetermined range of displacements of one of the support structure first and second layers in a direction toward the other one of the support structure first and second layers, the second predetermined range of displacements being different from the first predetermined range of displacements (see from Chen, Section 4: Numerical Simulations, in which there are ranging displacements and specifically there is a negative stiffness response from the analogous structure when it is displaced anywhere from about 5mm to 15mm, therefore the negative stiffness response is held for a multiplicity of displacement ranges between the direction of the first and second layers, see also fig 5). Therefore, as Chen teaches all of the deficiencies of the previous rejection, claims 4-5 and 19 remain rejected under the new prior art of record rejection of Tomita in view of Chen set forth in the present office action.
As no further remarks have been presented for the remainder of the claims, they too remain rejected based on their dependency of the previous claims under the new prior art of record rejection set forth in the present office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M BROWN whose telephone number is (703)756-4534. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00pm EST, Mon-Fri, alternating Fridays off.
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.
/KYLE M. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights