DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 1/19/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-13 is as follows.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 introduces new matter that was not provided in the original disclosure. Claim 13 states the “mesh fabric bears up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the third direction.” This limitation was not provided in the original disclosure. On page 31 of the specification of the instant application, the applicant states that “the mesh fabric may be configured to bear up to a certain strain (e.g., 120%) in the first direction 402 and up to a certain amount of strain (e.g., 120%) in the second direction 404.” The application makes no mention of bearing up to 120% strain in a third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions. Therefore, the claim is rejected for introducing new matter.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 the “mesh fabric bears up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the third direction.” This limitation was not provided in the original disclosure. Thus, it is unclear what direction the mesh fabric can bear up to 120% of the mechanical strain. Therefore, since this limitation was not provided or described in the original disclosure, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (hereinafter ‘Hyde’, US 20170164876 A1) in view of Brauers et al. (hereinafter ‘Brauers’, US 20100113910 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hyde discloses a biopotential signal acquisition device (Device shown in Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (sensors 770 in Fig. 3A, 3B, and 5; [0095]: sensors 770 may be electrodes) that are configured to be attached to skin of a subject to detect biopotential signals of the subject ([Abstract]: the sensor assembly generates sense signals based on detection of a movement of the body portion and a physiological parameter of the body portion; [0191]: the sensor assembly can include EMG, ECG, EEG, or EOG sensors – all of these detect biopotentials);
an electro-mechanical structure (layer 107 in Figs. 1B, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5; [0081]: layer 107 may include electrical components on a layer of material 111 which provides mechanical support to the electrical components; as claimed, “electro-mechanical structure” is very broad and is interpreted to simply include physical components that are electronic, so even without the layer of material 111, layer 107 still contains physical components that are electronic as disclosed in [0083]) having a plurality of conductive contacts affixed to the plurality of electrodes (cells 120 which are affixed to the electrodes as seen in Fig. 3A), one or more electronic components (electronic components 780, 760, 765, 763, and 761 as shown in Fig. 3B and described in [0083]), and a plurality of connectors (connectors 751 in Figs. 3B) that mechanically and electrically couple the plurality of conductive contacts and the one or more electronic components ([0089]-[0090]: the connection 751 connects the cell 120 to the control circuit 760 to send the signals from the sensors 770 to the control circuit).
Hyde additionally discloses that the electronics layer 107 is connected to a substrate layer 105 which can help provide mechanical support and may also shield the electronics layer from outside sources of radiation, magnetic fields, light, etc. ([0082]). Hyde further discloses an alternate embodiment in which the substrate layer 1002 can be a flexible, stretchable fabric substrate ([0182]-[0183]). The substrate 1002 is also configured to reversibly deform to coordinate with a deformation of the skin, reversible deformation is synonymous with elastic deformation since it returns to its original shape ([0137]). The sensor assembly 1004 is mounted on the substrate as shown in Fig. 9 and described in paragraph [0183]. In this embodiment, substrate 1002 is serving the same purpose as the substrate 105 in the earlier embodiments, it is just not removed after attaching the device to the skin. Hyde further states that modifications and changes can be made between the various embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention ([0294). Furthermore, because the sensor assembly is mounted to the fabric substrate, the substrate would inherently bear the mechanical strain of the electro-mechanical assembly as it is part of the sensor assembly.
However, Hyde is specifically silent to the sensor layer 107 being attached to a fabric mesh.
Brauers discloses a sensor arrangement for monitoring physiological parameters integrated into textiles ([Abstract]). Brauers further teaches that the textile fabric, similar to the substrate 1002, can comprise a shield for suppressing electromagnetic interference with the sensor, similar to the substrate layer 105 ([0004]). The sensor array can be integrated into a garment, similar to Hyde, as seen in Figs. 2A-2B and comprises a layered configuration as seen in Fig. 3B. The shield can be a woven fabric that creates gaps ([0039]). While Brauers does indicate that larger gaps are not as effective, the fabric can be woven tighter with considerably smaller gaps to improve shielding properties ([0039]-[0040]). Brauers further states that the shield can be a grid of conductive yarn that can make up the complete surface, which would additionally form a mesh layer made of fabric ([0030]). Because the claim does not define the size of the gaps or the specific pattern of the mesh, a woven fabric with gaps satisfies the claim language. Furthermore, the shield overlays the entirety of the sensor arrangement as seen in Fig. 3B, similar to the substrate 105/1002 of Hyde. The conductive shield suppresses electromagnetic interference and discharges static electricity, thus reducing noise ([0004]-[0006]). The mesh structure of Brauers would also inherently bear the mechanical strain of the electro-mechanical structure because it would support the electro-mechanical structure in the combination with Hyde. Any substrate that is covering and is layered with another structure would inherently bear at least a portion of the mechanical strain of the structure when the device is bent or strained caused by dynamic movement of the tissue of the subject because all of the layers are connected to each other. Furthermore, any mesh-type fabric weave would inherently have at least a small degree of elastic deformation because all materials have at least some degree of elastic deformation and the claim does not specify the degree to which the mesh substrate deforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mesh fabric of Brauers with the substrate of Hyde such that the substrate is an elastically deformable mesh fabric which forms a shield overlaying the electro-mechanical layer and the sensors, which would inherently impart the functionality of bearing a portion of the strain on the electro-mechanical layer and would result in reduced noise for better signal acquisition.
While it is the examiner’s opinion that the Hyde/Brauers combination teaches the fabric mesh is elastically deformable, Brauers does not explicitly state this fact. However, Hyde states the substrate should be reversibly deformable in paragraph [0137].
Brauers further teaches that the textile is part of a wearable garment ([0008]) which would imply the ability to elastically deform as fabric is not typically rigid. While Brauers does not explicitly state the mesh is elastically deformable, Hyde discloses that it is important for the substrate upon which the sensors are mounted to be deformable ([0182]). Hyde further discloses the substrate can be one or more of a fabric, paper, or polymer ([0182]). The pliable nature of the substrate imparts flexibility and stretchability which enable the device to better interface with the skin surface of a subject ([0182]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the elastically deformable property of the substrate is maintained in the fabric mesh of the Hyde/Brauers combination in order to better conform to the user’s skin, which is a non-uniform surface.
Regarding claim 2, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. Brauers further teaches wherein the mesh fabric includes a plurality of fibrous threads ([0030]: the conductive shield can be a net of yarns) arranged as a grid ([0030]: the conductive shield can be a net of yarns arranged as a grid) in which a first subset of the plurality of threads align in a first direction and a second subset of the plurality of threads align in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction ([0030]: the conductive yarn forms a grid; [0039]: the fabric can be tightly woven; both grids and woven fabric inherently align the yarn in a first direction and a second direction that are orthogonal to each other; weaving is a known manufacturing method in the art that interlaces two sets of threads at right angles to one another), wherein the first direction and the second direction are oblique to a third direction corresponding to the dynamic movement of the tissue of the subject (the first and second directions are oblique to a third direction as highlighted in the annotated Fig. 1 below; the movement direction can simply correspond to the row direction as highlighted; the dynamic movement is a result of a the subject moving and the subject can move in a direction oblique to the first and second directions).
Regarding claim 3, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of conductive contacts are arranged in at least one row along the third direction t (the mesh and the arrangement of the contacts are both arranged in grids with rows and columns orthogonal to each other; this means that no matter the orientation of the mesh, rows can be defined between the contacts that are arranged in a third direction that is oblique to the first and the second direction, which corresponds to the dynamic movement of the subject as defined in claim 2; the two most clear cases are shown below in the annotated Fig. 1 of Hyde and for every rotation of the mesh, the one set of rows highlighted below would be oblique to the first and second directions; this is also consistent with the instant application as the mesh creates a grid of right angles and the contacts are also arranged in a grid of right angles).
PNG
media_image1.png
355
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
355
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of conductive contacts are arranged in a two dimensional array that includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, wherein the plurality of rows are aligned in a third direction that is oblique to the first direction and the second direction and the plurality of columns are aligned in a fourth direction oblique to the first direction and the second direction (the mesh and the arrangement of the contacts are both arranged in grids with rows and columns orthogonal to each other; this means that no matter the orientation of the mesh, rows and columns can be defined between the contacts that are arranged in a third direction and a fourth direction that are oblique to the first and the second direction; the two most clear cases are shown below in the annotated Fig. 1 of Hyde and for every rotation of the mesh, the one set of the rows and columns highlighted below would be oblique to the first and second directions; this is also consistent with the instant application as the mesh creates a grid of right angles and the contacts are also arranged in a grid of right angles).
PNG
media_image3.png
355
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
355
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the mesh fabric conforms to a non-uniform surface (Hyde [0182]: the substrate is configured to conform to a contour of the body like the curvature of a limb; this ability is maintained in the combination as described above).
Regarding claim 6, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. The combination further teaches the mesh fabric dissipates static electrical charge (Brauers [0005]: the shield discharges the static or dynamic charges).
Regarding claim 7, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. The combination further teaches the mesh fabric includes a plurality of conductive threads (Brauers [0030]: the conductive shield comprises conductive yarns).
Regarding claim 9, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. The combination further teaches the mesh fabric is electrically connected to a fixed electric potential provided (Brauers [0006]: the shield is connected to a potential equalization which is an electric potential such as grounding) by the electro-mechanical structure (Hyde [0191]: the physiological sensor includes the ground electrode; thus in the combination the electro-mechanical structure of Hyde, which contains all of the electrical connectors for connecting electronics to the electrodes, would connect the shield to the ground electrode).
Regarding claim 10, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the biopotential signals are triggered by motor neurons (Hyde [0141]: the physiological sensor can be used to detect electromyograph).
Regarding claim 13, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 2, wherein the mesh fabric bears up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the third direction (this is a functional limitation as the structure which provides for this ability is not claimed; additionally, “up to” implies that it can bear anywhere from 0% up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the third direction; because the mesh fabric is attached to the remainder of the device, it bears a portion of the mechanical strain which can be anywhere from 0% up to 120% of the strain).
As the claim is written, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the limitation.
Alternatively, for the purposes of compact prosecution, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the mesh fabric bears up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the third direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the current case, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the claimed structure in claims 1 and 2, thus discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the instant application provides no criticality to this limitation. On page 31 of the specification of the instant application, the applicant simply states that “the mesh fabric may be configured to bear up to a certain strain (e.g., 120%).” The statement of 120% is merely exemplary and does not have any criticality provided.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hyde/Brauers combination as applied to claim 7/1 and described above in further view of Gladfelter (US 4684762 A).
Regarding claim 8, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 7. The combination further teaches that the shield is a fabric coated with a conductive layer (Brauers [0036]-[0039]).
However, the combination is silent to the core of the thread being non-conductive.
Gladfelter teaches a fabric for RFI/EMI shielding wherein the fabric is woven, braided, or warp knitted from yarns comprising conductive and non-conductive fibers ([Abstract]). Gladfelter further teaches that the conductive fibers used in the invention can be conductive themselves like carbon, graphite, or a conductive polymer, or can be nonconductive fibers coated with a conductive material ([Col 3, lines 1-18]). The selection and combination of conductive and nonconductive fibers depends on the desired durability, end use, and other desirable properties of the fabric ([Col 3, lines 1-18]). The instant application states similar alternates for the mesh fabric. Specifically, page 17 of the specification of the instant application states that the threads of the mesh fabric can be natively conducting or made of non-conductive material coated with a conductive finish, thus the instant application does not provide criticality to a nonconductive core with a conductive coating. Furthermore, while it appears Brauers utilizes the conductive coating to impart the conductivity onto the yarn, natively conductive yarn coated with a conductive material would simply form a conductive yarn. Therefore, the substitution of one known element (natively conducting yarn) for another (non-conducting strands coated with a conductive material) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the nonconductive yarn coated with a conductive material of Gladfelter would have yielded predictable results, namely, maintaining the shielding property of the layer.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hyde/Brauers combination as applied to claim 1 and described above in further view of Rodrigues (US 20130137943 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the Hyde/Brauers combination discloses the invention according to claim 1 as described above. Hyde further discloses that the sensor assembly is affixed to the textile substrate ([0183])
However, the combination is silent to how the electro-mechanical is attached to the mesh fabric.
Rodrigues teaches a textile integrated with biometric monitoring, similar to the device of the Hyde/Brauers combination ([Abstract]). Rodrigues further teaches that the sensor and fabric are laminated together utilizing a silicone adhesive ([0138] and Fig. 7). The silicone adhesive protects the sensors from water and allows for breathability ([0138]). Silicone adhesives are known in the art to be flexible, and the claim does not limit the amount of flex required by the adhesive. Furthermore, the device of Rodrigues is a sock and the sensor and adhesive are located on the toe region of the sock as seen in Fig. 3. Rodrigues states the sock is elastic and comfortable, thus it is obvious to ensure the adhesive used is elastic and comfortable to ensure the toe portion of the sock is not a rigid spot ([0026]-[0030]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a silicone adhesive to connect the mesh fabric to the electro-mechanical base since the selection of a known material is of routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the silicone adhesive taught by Rodrigues as the attachment means between the mesh fabric and the electro-mechanical base to provide water-proof protection to the electronics while maintaining breathability.
Regarding claim 12, the Hyde/Brauers/Rodrigues combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 11 as described above. The combination further teaches wherein the mesh fabric is configured to promote entanglement with the flexible silicone (this is a functional limitation of the mesh because the structure of the mesh that creates this entanglement is not claimed; the instant application states that the mesh fabric promotes entanglement by having a openings which allows the silicone to penetrate the openings, [page 17 of the instant application specification]; the mesh of the Hyde/Brauers/Rodrigues combination has openings as described in the rejection of claim 1, which inherently allow for some penetration of the silicone adhesive – thus the mesh promotes entanglement with the silicone adhesive).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 1/19/2026, with respect to the 112b rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 112b rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 regarding the Hyde/Brauers combination have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant initially argues there is no teaching in Brauers, alone or in combination with Hyde, for attachment of a shirt or trousers of Brauers to the electro-mechanical structure. However, this is not persuasive. Hyde states that the sensor assembly 1004 is mounted on the substrate 1002 as shown in Fig. 9 and described in paragraph [0183]. Substrate 1002 can be a flexible, stretchable fabric substrate ([0182]-[0183]). Hyde additionally discloses that the electronics layer 107 is connected to a substrate layer 105 which can help provide mechanical support and may also shield the electronics layer from outside sources of radiation, magnetic fields, light, etc. ([0082]). Hyde further states that modifications and changes can be made between the various embodiments without departing from the scope of the invention ([0294). Brauers is simply used to teach that utilizing a mesh fabric to function as a shield would be an obvious combination to make with Hyde since Hyde already discloses the substrate is a fabric and can be a shield. Brauers is used to teach the structure of the mesh fabric, not integrating the sensor into a shirt. Regardless of this fact, Hyde explicitly discloses that the sensor device can be “affixed in a textile, fabric, garment, accessory (e.g., a glove, a sock, a finger cot, etc.)” (Hyde [0063]). Thus, it is a perfectly reasonable combination to combine a fabric mesh shield of Brauers with the device of Hyde since Hyde already discloses that the substrate can be a fabric and integrated into a garment.
Applicant’s arguments stating that integrating the device of Hyde into the fabric taught by Brauers is not persuasive because Hyde explicitly discloses the substrate is a fabric that can be integrated into a garment (Hyde [0063], [0182]-[0182]). Thus, the functionality would be maintained. Brauers is not used to teach adding an additional layer to the device of Hyde, but rather to teach the structure and application of the existing substrate disclosed by Hyde to be a shielding mesh fabric.
Applicant’s arguments that the structure containing the sensors bears all of the mechanical strain and thus the mesh fabric does not bear this mechanical strain is not persuasive. The electro-mechanical base is provided on a substrate 105 or 1002, depending on the embodiment. This substrate, which is the mesh fabric of the combination, bears some degree of mechanical strain. Specifically, substrate 1002 is configured to reversibly deform to coordinate with a deformation of the skin (Hyde [0137]). Thus, if the person moving causes the device to stretch or deform, the substrate would bear at least some of that strain.
Therefore, since Hyde discloses providing the sensor arrangement on a fabric substrate which would inherently bear some of the mechanical strain caused by movement, and Brauers is used to teach the structure and function of the fabric substrate layer, the rejection to claim 1 remains.
The rejections of claims 2-7 and 9-10 remain because the rejection of claim 1 remains.
The rejection of claim 8 remains because no specific arguments to the application of Gladfelter to claim 8 were provided.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571)272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794