DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 6/2/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending. A non-final action on the merits of claims 1-19 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/2026 has been entered.
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, 13-16, and 19 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) and in further view of Moczygemba (US 20200092988 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 separate 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 separate 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 modify the separate substrate of Hyde to the mesh fabric of Brauers 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.
However, the Hyde/Brauers combination is silent to a first encapsulant that fully envelopes fibrous threads of the mesh fabric through lattice openings in the mesh fabric.
Moczygemba teaches a stretchable conductor structure and a garment with a stretchable conductor structure ([Abstract]). The stretchable conductor structure is a plurality of conductive wires patterned into a mesh structure that is laminated and embedded in a stretchable material, such as silicone ([0024]). The lamination encapsulates the mesh structure ([0006]). The stretchable encapsulation of the mesh structure allows for the mesh structure to be stretched and return to an original state after manipulation of the structure ends ([0006]). Embedding the mesh conductor in the stretchable laminate can be done by using pressure sensitive adhesive or utilizing a liquid laminate cast around the mesh structure and allowed to cure ([0035]). Laminating the mesh structure utilizing a liquid laminate would result in the liquid laminate fully enveloping the threads of the mesh through the lattice openings of the mesh. 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 liquid encapsulant of Moczygemba with the mesh substrate of the Hyde/Brauers combination in order to provide a greater degree of stretchability and elasticity to the mesh of the Hyde/Brauers combination.
Regarding claim 2, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. Brauers further teaches wherein the fibrous threads ([0030]: the conductive shield can be a net of yarns) are 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/Moczygemba 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 (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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 2, wherein the mesh fabric bears up to 120% of the mechanical strain in the first direction and in the second 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 first and second directions; 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/Moczygemba 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 first and second directions, 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.
Regarding claim 14, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the first encapsulant is flexible silicone (Moczygemba [0024]: the stretchable polymer material can be silicone).
Regarding claim 15, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 1, further comprising: a second encapsulant that encapsulates the electro-mechanical structure and at least a portion of the electrodes (Hyde [0065]: barrier layer 109 made of elastomer or polymer like PDMS; [0068]: the barrier layer 109 encompasses the electronics layer 107 and may also partially coat electronics to allow for contact between the elements and the attachment surface – thus the electrodes are only partially coated to allow for contact with the skin and the electronics layer can be completely coated).
Regarding claim 16, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 15, wherein the second encapsulant is flexible (Hyde [0065]: the barrier layer 109 is made of an elastomer and has a low elastic modulus – thus it is flexible).
Regarding claim 19, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the biopotential signal acquisition device of claim 7 as described above.
Brauers further teaches that the textile mesh discharged static and dynamic charges that are built up during use and can be actively driven or grounded ([0006]). Brauers additionally teaches that the shielding mesh is actively driven by an electric potential which allows charge build up on the person to be prevented, further preventing loss of sensitivity of the sensors and preventing saturation of the measuring electronics ([0032]). Grounding the shielding allows for potential equalization and discharge of any charge buildup ([0006], [0030]). Connecting the mesh shield to a fixed potential would provide for the charge shedding that is claimed since the connection allows for the dissipation of charge buildup. Both a driven potential and a ground potential allow for a degree of charge dissipation and shedding and both are included since the claim is not specific to whether the fixed potential is ground or a driven potential. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the shield of the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba to a fixed potential, either ground or driven, of the one or more electrical circuits of the electronic components in order to allow for the shield mesh to be grounded or actively driven which would discharge charges to prevent saturation of the measuring electronics and loss of measurement sensitivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination as applied to claim 7/1 and described above in further view of Gladfelter (US 4684762 A).
Regarding claim 8, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba combination as applied to claim 1 and described above in further view of Rodrigues (US 20130137943 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba 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/Moczygemba/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/Moczygemba/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).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination as applied to claims 16/15/1 and 15/1, respectively, and described above in further view of Caparelli et al. (hereinafter ‘Caparelli’, US 20230270385 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the device of claim 16 as described above. Hyde further discloses that the layer 109 has openings for the cells, which the electrodes are part of, to contact the contact surface ([0082]).
However, the combination doesn’t explicitly state that the electrodes protrude through the opening, only that they are exposed for contact.
Caparelli teaches a flexible sensor belt to be worn on the abdominal part of the human body ([Abstract]). The device utilizes a flexible support layer, similar to the barrier layer of the combination, that comprises one or more holes that the electrodes are exposed and protrude through ([Abstract]). Allowing the electrodes to protrude through the holes enables them to be exposed and make contact with the skin for signal collection ([0049]). Modifying the electrodes such that they protrude through the holes simply requires a change in the shape of the electrode. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the electrodes of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the electrodes of the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba such that they protrude through the holes of the encapsulating layer, as taught by Caparelli, in order to enable contact with the skin of the user.
Regarding claim 18, the Hyde/Brauers/Moczygemba combination discloses the device of claim 15 as described above. Hyde further discloses that the barrier layer 109 needs to be an elastomer or polymer suited for contact with organic tissue, such as PDMS which is a type of silicone polymer ([0065]).
However, the combination is silent to the barrier layer being simply silicone, which is the same as the first encapsulant.
Caparelli further teaches that the sensor belt is sealed in silicone rubber which seals the electronics from the exterior of the belt ([0012]). During manufacturing, the liquid silicone is applied to the belt and then cured ([0012]). Specifically, the support layer 46, which covers the edges of the electrodes and the circuitry as shown in Fig. 4D is manufactured from liquid silicone rubber ([0063]). This is the same as the first encapsulant taught by Moczygemba, which is a silicone that can be a liquid laminate cast around the mesh structure and allowed to cure ([0024], [0035]). Liquid curable silicone is thus a known material to utilize to form an encapsulating layer over electrodes and would be an obvious alternative to PDMS (which in itself is a type of silicone) as taught by Caparelli because utilizing such a silicone would maintain flexibility, provide support, and protect the electronics from the external environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the silicone taught by Caparelli in place of the PDMS of Hyde, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 1/19/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections of claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 112 rejections of claim 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the combination of record not teaching the first encapsulant have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Moczygemba is now used to teach the first encapsulant.
Applicant’s arguments that an encapsulant cannot fully envelope the threads of Brauers is not persuasive. There is no indication that small gaps in a textile mesh would prevent a silicone encapsulant from enveloping the threads. Moczygemba teaches that the encapsulant can be provided in liquid form and then cured ([0035]). A liquid silicone would penetrate through the gaps in Brauers because the gaps provide space for the liquid encapsulant to penetrate. There is no indication in Brauers or Moczygemba that a liquid encapsulant could not penetrate relatively small gaps and the applicant as not provided any evidence that this is the case.
Applicant’s arguments that the mesh fabric in the combination is not separate from the sensors and electro-mechanical structure is not persuasive. Hyde teaches a distinct substrate layer 105 and a distinct sensor/electro-mechanical layer 107, as seen in Fig. 1B. Each layer is a separate piece. The cells 120, that comprise the electrodes, are also separate components from the layer 105 as seen in Fig. 1B. Similarly, in Fig. 9 of Hyde, substrate 1002 is a separate entity from the sensor assembly 1004. The substrate of Hyde can be used as a shield ([0082]). However, it is simply not disclosed to be a fabric mesh. Brauers is used to teach modifying the substrate of Hyde to be a fabric mesh formed of conductive threads to act as a shield. The substrate of Hyde still stays separate from the electrodes and electro-mechanical layer in the combination as it is still a separate piece. Furthermore, the conductive shield of Brauers is also a separate piece as seen in Fig. 3B. Each layer is its own separate piece and they are connected together. The combination of record does not change this. The substrate layer is Hyde is simply combined with the teachings of Brauers to form a conductive mesh. Each layer remains a separate piece that are connected together to form the device. Brauers is simply used to teach the structure and application of the existing substrate disclosed by Hyde to be a shielding mesh fabric.
The rejections of claims 2-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 19 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.
The rejection of claims 11 and 12 remain because no specific arguments to the application of Rodrigues to claims 11 and 12 were provided.
The rejections of new claims 16 and 17 are explained above.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights