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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 49-64 have been renumbered 50-65. Claim 49 is duplicated and therefore the second claim 49 is renumbered claim 50 and the subsequent claims are 51-65.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 48 and 55 are 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 48 and 55 recites the ratio of Youngs modulus of the first, third courses to the second course is 103 or greater. Youngs modulus is a common term to describe the modulus of a yarn. It is not clear how a Youngs modulus of a course is measured or determined.
Renumbered Claim 51 and renumbered claim 59 recites the limitation "each intermediate first group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is lack of antecedent basis for “each intermediate first group”. It is not clear what the scope of each intermediate first group is as it is known what the first group is but not an intermediate first group. For purposes of examination, the intermediate first group is equated with the first group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 43, 47, 49, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMaster (US 20160186366) in view of Dias et al (US 20110030127).
McMaster is directed to a method for making a textile sensor and a textile sensor can include selecting a combination of variables from the group consisting of yarn variables, stitch variables, and textile variables; and knitting an electrically conductive yarn in the textile sensor in accordance with the selected combination of variables, wherein the combination of variables is selected so as to provide a controlled amount of contact resistance in the textile sensor. The method and textile can further include a capacitive textile-sensor having at least two integrally knit capacitor plate elements and having a configuration adapted for a sensing activity. Resistance in the textile sensor can automatically calibrate to a stable baseline level after the textile sensor is applied to a body (ABST).
McMaster teaches the knit fabric sensor functions as a strain sensor in [0123] and the strain sensing is integral to the knit fabric as claimed. The two samples were then compared in deformed states by stretching the samples first in the wale direction 74 (along the x-axis) and then in the course direction 80 (along the y-axis). “Stretching strain,” or the degree of stretching, is defined as the ratio of yarn unit (loop) 22, 24 elongation to initial height. Sample A was tested under a similar strain as Sample B, as well as under a higher strain. The two samples were compared in each state of deformation with respect to the four geometric parameters [0123].
McMaster teaches the knit fabrics have courses and defines “Course” as a horizontal row of interlooped stitches running across the width of a knitted fabric [0053]. McMaster teaches the knit fabric has courses.
McMaster teaches stitch variables, or characteristics, that can affect contact resistance include, for example: (1) stitch type, composition, or pattern; (2) stitch length; and (3) stitch percentage. Stitch type, composition, or pattern influence yarn contact area (52), as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4. One common stitch type, shown in FIG. 3A, is a plain, single jersey stitch pattern 10. The single jersey stitch pattern 10 has interconnecting stitch loops 22, 24 that touch at single jersey contact points 42. Another stitch type useful in embodiments of the present invention is a “purl” stitch. A purl stitch pattern comprises all loops in one or more courses knit from face to back, and all loops in the next one or more courses knit from back to face. The stitch type, composition, or pattern determines the configuration of the yarn in a textile, which influences the yarn contact area (52) and thus contact resistance [0076].
McMaster teaches knitted fabric that is designed to sense pressure and strain utilizes a single conductive yarn type, in which the applied pressure or strain causes different contact areas and resistances between adjacent loops of the yarn. And another knitted electronic transducer utilizes a combination of conductive and non-conductive yarns such that extension in the course or wale direction causes loops in the transducer to separate or come together, varying the electrical resistance of the article. However, none of these efforts has addressed the optimal construction of a textile for suitably overcoming the challenges of contact resistance in such a device [0004].
FIGS. 3A and 3B are schematic representations of stitch structures showing points of yarn contact. FIG. 3A is a schematic drawing of a single jersey stitch pattern. As shown in FIG. 3A, interconnecting stitch loops touch at single jersey contact points 100 [0081]. As shown in Fig. 3B there are two course of conductive yarns and course of non-conductive yarns. McMaster shows a first course of electrically conductive yarns (dark yarn) and a second course of non-conductive yarns (light yarn) and another third course of electrically conductive yarns (dark) wherein the second course is in between the first and third courses.
McMaster teaches a single jersey stitch pattern, one stitch contacts an adjacent stitch essentially on only one side, or surface, of the adjacent stitch (or fabric) at a time. In two interconnected stitch loops, the legs of a first stitch loop contact the feet of a second, adjacent stitch loop on one surface of the second stitch loop. On the opposite surface of the second stitch loop, the head of the first stitch loop contacts the legs of the second stitch loop. As a result, single jersey contact points are limited to relatively small crossover points of adjacent loops [0081].
FIG. 3B is a schematic drawing of a single jersey stitch pattern having miss and tuck stitches. A single jersey stitch pattern having miss and tuck stitches includes single jersey contact points 100, as well as additional contact points at the miss and tuck stitches [0082].
PNG
media_image1.png
368
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McMaster teaches in Fig. 2 that the stitch pattern has either relaxed or tensioned course or relaxed or tensioned wales [0018], [0101]. McMaster teaches that as yarn contact area 52 increases, yarn contact resistance decreases and MER decreases.
McMaster shows the mean electrical resistivity (MER) in jersey knit for relaxed or tensioned courses. Each sample stitch pattern exhibited a decrease in MER between a relaxed state and a tensioned state, consistent with the effect of increasing yarn contact area (52) related to influence by tuck stitches 36 (such as the tuck loop contact point 46 and the tensioned tuck stitch contact point 50) as the sample was tensioned [0101]. McMaster teaches in Fig. 14 and 15, the fabric in relaxed state and then the fabric is stretched state (Fig. 15). As for Sample A, under a walewise strain of 11%, yarn unit width (W) decreased about 19%, and the yarn unit gap (G) increased by about 16%, from comparative dimensions in the un-deformed state. Under an 11% strain, the yarns contact at a few points. Under a walewise strain of 22%, yarn unit width (W) decreased about 39%, and the yarn unit gap (G) increased by about 26%, from the comparative dimensions in the un-deformed state. The photograph in FIG. 15 shows Sample A under a 22% strain 72 in the wale direction 74. Under the 22% strain 72, the yarns contact at every stitch. Thus, under loading in the wale direction 74, a decreasing yarn unit width (W) and an increasing yarn unit gap (G) correlate with increasing yarn contact [0125].
PNG
media_image2.png
296
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McMaster teaches yarn contact is increased in stretched or tension state and reduced in the unstretched state such that there is decreased resistivity in the stretched state due to the increased contact and increase resistivity in the unstretched state. McMaster is silent with regard to whether the first and third course are in contact when relaxed and not in contact with each other under stretched state. It is reasonable to presume that when in the stretched state first and third course are not in contact as separated by the second course and similarly when in the relaxed state the first and third course would be in contact as in closer proximity.
Evidence of this is found in reference, Dias. Dias is directed to an electronic transducer comprises a knitted structure extendible in two dimensions defined by its courses and wales. An electro-conductive yarn (4) defines at least one single course in the structure adjacent non-conductive yarns (2), and is to be part of a circuit providing an indication of an electrical characteristic of the yarn. When unextended in either direction, successive loops of the stitches including the electro-conductive yarn are in engagement. Extension of the structure in the course direction separate loops forming the stitches, and extension in the wale direction urges the loops together. The structure can be used in methods of registering extension of the structure in either or both of the course and wale directions.
McMaster does not teach the non-conductive yarns are dielectric. Applicant describes dielectric can be a non-conductive yarn.
As to claim 43, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the knit pattern motivated to produce a strain sensing knit that provides the desired resistivity in relaxed and tensioned states.
As to claim 51 (previous 50), McMaster teaches first, second and third courses and knit patterns that produce strain sensors and therefore teaches intermediate first groups which overlaps with an intermediate subsequent first group of courses of yarn. The claim terms of “intermediate” groups and yarns does not distinguish from the first course, second course and third course of claim 43.
As to claims 47, McMaster differs and does not teach the Youngs modulus of the courses. McMaster teaches the same materials and structure as claimed and therefore reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to the structure of McMaster. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 49, McMaster shows consecutive courses in Fig. 3A-3B.
As to claim 50, McMaster shows in Fig. 3A-3B a front knit-back knit stitching pattern as the conductive yarns are shown in front for a first wale and loop and in back for the adjacent wale and loop.
McMaster teaches another stitch type useful in embodiments of the present invention is a “purl” stitch. A purl stitch pattern comprises all loops in one or more courses knit from face to back, and all loops in the next one or more courses knit from back to face. The stitch type, composition, or pattern determines the configuration of the yarn in a textile, which influences the yarn contact area (52) and thus contact resistance [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a front-back stitch pattern motivated to optimize the yarn contact area and contact resistance.
Claims 44-46, 48 and 52-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMaster (US 20160186366) in view of Dias et al (US 20110030127) in view of Kurahashi et al (US 20180347081).
As to claims 44 and 45, McMaster and Dias do not teach elastic yarns as the non-conductive yarns (dielectric yarns).
Kurahashi is directed to a highly elastic and pliant knitted fabric which affords restorability against repetitive stretching, has characteristic of varying in electrical resistance with state changes between stretched state and unstretched state, and may provide air permeability, moisture permeability, and water absorbability for suitable use as wearable material. A direction in which continuous loops are successively formed in knit structure is defined as course direction or course, loops are formed of conductive yarn, elastic yarn is positioned so as to exhibit tightening force in course direction, and the knitted fabric is designed so that, when in unstretched state, conductive yarn loops arranged adjacent each other in course direction are kept in contact with each other under tightening force of elastic yarn, whereas, in a state of being stretched in course direction, conductive yarn loops move away from each other against tightening force of elastic yarn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate an elastic yarn between the conductive yarns motivated to insure the conductive yarns were in contact when the knit was in an unstretched state.
As to claims 46 and 48, McMaster teaches a stretch and extension in the wale direction as it impacts the resistivity as shown in Fig. 2.
Dias teaches extension in the wale direction urges the loops together [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to extend the wales motivated to bring the loops together and decrease the resistivity of the strain area.
As to claim 52, 53, 54 and 56, McMaster teaches the knit fabric has conductive yarn and non-conductive yarns and the pattern produces a resistive area that can function as a strain sensor. As such there is a resistor pattern in the knit and first and second groups of courses of yarn. The patterns of McMaster are resistive as well as sensing and McMaster teaches the claimed resistor portions integrally knit.
McMaster differs and does not teach the second course has higher elasticity.
Kurahashi is directed to a highly elastic and pliant knitted fabric which affords restorability against repetitive stretching, has characteristic of varying in electrical resistance with state changes between stretched state and unstretched state, and may provide air permeability, moisture permeability, and water absorbability for suitable use as wearable material. A direction in which continuous loops are successively formed in knit structure is defined as course direction or course, loops are formed of conductive yarn, elastic yarn is positioned so as to exhibit tightening force in course direction, and the knitted fabric is designed so that, when in unstretched state, conductive yarn loops arranged adjacent each other in course direction are kept in contact with each other under tightening force of elastic yarn, whereas, in a state of being stretched in course direction, conductive yarn loops move away from each other against tightening force of elastic yarn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to product a resistor portion in a knit fabric motivated to produce a strain sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate an elastic yarn between the conductive yarns motivated to insure the conductive yarns were in contact when the knit was in an unstretched state.
As to claim 55, McMaster differs and does not teach the Youngs modulus of the courses. McMaster teaches the same materials and structure as claimed and therefore reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to the structure of McMaster. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 57, McMaster shows consecutive courses in Fig. 3A-3B.
As to claim 58, McMaster shows in Fig. 3A-3B a front knit-back knit stitching pattern as the conductive yarns are shown in front for a first wale and loop and in back for the adjacent wale and loop.
As to claim 59 (58), McMaster teaches first, second and third courses and knit patterns that produce strain sensors and therefore teaches intermediate first groups which overlaps with an intermediate subsequent first group of courses of yarn. The claim terms of “intermediate” groups and yarns does not distinguish from the first course, second course and third course of claim 52.
As to claims 60 (59) and 61 (60), McMaster teaches two integrally knit capacitor plate elements which are equated with a first interconnect portion integrally knit in the textile. McMaster also teaches the consecutive courses of conductive yarn that are formed of knitted loop in a miss and tuck stitches which is equated with a knit-miss stitching pattern.
As to claim 62, McMaster teaches the embodiments can comprise a capacitive textile-sensor having at least two integrally knit capacitor plate elements comprising the electrically conductive yarn and having a configuration adapted for a sensing activity. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the configuration can further comprise a selected contact resistance within the knitted capacitor plate elements. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the capacitor plate elements can each further comprise a defined yarn contact area, and the selected contact resistance can comprise a selected number and shape of yarn contact points within each yarn contact area. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the configuration can further comprise a selected size, shape, and position of the capacitor plate elements and a dielectric material within the capacitive textile-sensor. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, a measure of capacitance by the capacitive textile-sensor can correlate with an amount of strain in the capacitive textile-sensor. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the capacitor plate elements can be knit as a series of spaced apart, interdigitated fingers. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the capacitor plate elements can be knit into a defined area of two opposable fabric layers. In such a capacitive textile-sensor, the capacitive textile-sensor can be knit in a wearable garment during fabrication of the garment [0014] and teaches capacitor parallel plates [0171]-[0174]. McMaster teaches the capacitor plates (equated with interconnect portions) are connected to the electrically conductive yarn and when stretch or strain is applied along the length of textile sensor, the strain generates capacitance that is linear to the strain [0174] which meets the claim limitation.
As to claim 63 (62), McMaster teaches a knit fabric that is wearable for sensing respiration rate, mechanical joint movement, strain during exercise [0067] and has the structure as noted in the rejection of claim 43 with course of conductive yarns and course of a non-conductive (dielectric yarn).
As to claim 64 (63) and 65 (64), McMaster teaches the knit textile for strain sensing and teaches the textile has the structure as noted under claim 43 and teaches a method of knitting per claim 64 and 65. The knit textile has sensing portions that are also resistor portions and therefore meet the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seitz (US20160018274) is directed to a textile pressure sensor for the capacitive measuring of a pressure distribution of objects of any shape, in particular body parts, on a surface, having a first structure (30a) which is conductive at least in regions and a second structure (30b) which is conductive at least in regions, wherein the first structure and the second structure that are conductive at least in regions are separated from each other by a dielectric intermediate element (48), and wherein conductive regions of the first structure (30a) form capacitors with opposite conductive regions of the second structure (30b). The textile pressure sensor is characterized in that the first and/or the second structure that is conductive at least in regions (30a, 30b) is designed as a knit.
Usui et al (US 20190281820) is directed to a piezoelectric fabric.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789