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 without traverse of Group II, claims 10-15 in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023 and 12/8/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulings et al (US 2022/0249024, hereinafter Hulings) in view of Gustavson et al. (US 2018/0221648, hereinafter Gustavson).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15, Hulings discloses a wearable defibrillator including a defibrillation electrode pad 1346 that can sense ECG and provide shock treatment, as well as a wearable article comprising a flexible support material 1342 configured to hold a containment portion 1344 that is sized to house the electrode pad (figure 13C, par. 0186, 0222). A spacer structure 1348 is positioned to provide a cushioned area for pressure on the electrode pad 1346 (par. 0186 and fig. 13C). A processor determines and delivers shock treatment (par. 0081). However, Hulings is silent as to the exact structure of the spacer. Gustavson also discloses a wearable defibrillator and thus is analogous art with Hulings. Gustavson discloses a wearable article as seen in figures 6-7 with an electrode 648 and a spacer structure that provides a cushioned area for pressure on the electrode (par. 0053). Gustavson discloses that the spacer structure for providing pressure to an electrode can be made of foam and/or a mesh (par. 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify the spacer structure of Hulings to be made from spacer mesh, as taught by Gustavson, as Gustavson demonstrates that this is a known material in the art that would predictably result in a spacer structure to provide a cushioned area for pressure on an electrode, and the use of the mesh would not affect the overall purpose or functionality of Hulings.
Once the spacer structure 1348 of Hulings is made of mesh material, the spacer structure can be subdivided as shown in the annotated figure below to inherently include a top air-permeable layer, a bottom air-permeable layer, and a compressible middle layer with a plurality of springy mesh elements that would allow for airflow:
PNG
media_image1.png
764
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulings and Gustavson in view of Skalos et al. (US 2022/0104566, hereinafter Skalos).
Hulings, as described and modified above, discloses the applicant’s basic invention but is silent as to making the containment portion out of conductive material. Skalos also discloses a wearable defibrillator and thus is analogous art with Hulings. Skalos discloses a wearable article with a containment portion 56/57 for receiving electrode 11 that is made of conductive material (figure 4A and par. 0186). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify the containment portion of Hulings to be made from conductive material, as taught by Skalos, as Skalos demonstrates that this is a known material in the art that would predictably result in a containment structure sized to house an electrode, and the use of the material would not affect the overall purpose or functionality of Hulings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights