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 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.
Claims 16 and 21 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 16 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the environmental stimulus” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the environmental stimulus is a chemical stimulus” in lines 1-2. Claim 21 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 does not detail an environmental stimulus and only details a biological stimulus. It is unclear what exactly Applicant is intending to claim by such a limitation. The cited art is considered to meet the limitations of claim 21. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5,7-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman et al. (US Pat. 6,381,482) in view of Connor et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0370320) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2005/0081913.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Jayaraman et al. teach intelligent fibers for forming a product with the intelligent fibers comprising at least one of mono-material fiber, coaxial fiber and continuous fiber. Jayaraman et al. teach comfort component 22, signal transport component (which can be penetration detection component 24 and/or electrical conductive component 25), and a form fitting component 26. The mono-material fiber includes at least two adjacent fibers (such as cotton and polyester in a blend) with the first fiber of at least two fibers being formed from a first material and being adjacent to a second fiber of the at least two fibers and the second fiber being formed from a second material being different from the first material. The coaxial fiber includes at least includes at least two coaxial fibers including a first fiber of the at least two coaxial fibers formed from a first material and surrounding the second coaxial fiber of the at least two coaxial fibers formed from a second material. It is noted the continuous fiber is not required by the claim language of claim 1.
Jayaraman et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Jayaraman et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
As noted above in the 35 USC 112 rejection, the cited art is considered to meet the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding clam 3, Jayaraman et al. teach the mono-material fibers include a third material different form the first and second materials (combination of cotton, polyester and propylene). The coaxial fibers include a third material different form the first and second materials as nylon fibers doped with conductive inorganic particles and a PVC insulating sheath are taught. It is noted that the continuous fibers are not required by the language of claims 1 or 3.
Regarding claim 4, Jayaraman et al. teach comprise a plurality of mono-material fibers interwoven to form a product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any weave including a triaxial which is a basic weave as evidenced by PG Pub. 2005/0081913.
Regarding claim 5, Jayaraman et al. are silent regarding the coaxial fibers being produced by 3D printing. However, it would have been obvious to use any of the well known methods of producing fibers including 3D printing in order to yield fibers quickly and given the limited number of methods of making fibers. However, Although Jayaraman et al. does not disclose the process of making the coaxial fibers, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Jayaraman et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fibers, Jayaraman et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fibers.
Regarding claims 7-9, Jayaraman et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property (tactile sensation) as taught in 0173) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological which is an environmental stimulus) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Jayaraman et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the product is a garment or textile.
Regarding claim 11, the fibers comprises fiber optics (optical fibers).
Regarding claims 12-13, Jayaraman et al. teach a method of making a textile product from intelligent fibers with the method comprising weaving at least three mono-material fiber (combination of cotton, polyester and propylene) to form a woven textile product wherein the mono-material fiber includes at least three adjacent fibers wherein a first fiber of the at least three fibers is formed from a first material and is adjacent to a second fiber of the at least three fibers and the second fiber is formed from a second material being different from the first material and a third fiber of the at least three fibers is formed from a third material different from the first and second materials. Jayaraman et al. teach comprise a plurality of mono-material fibers interwoven to form a product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any weave including a triaxial which is a basic weave as evidenced by PG Pub. 2005/0081913.
Jayaraman et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Jayaraman et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14-17, Jayaraman et al. teach a method of making a product, including a textile, from intelligent fibers with the method comprising weaving on a loom at least three coaxial fibers wherein the third coaxial fiber surround the second coaxial fiber (sheath-core fibers are taught) and is formed from a third material with a first fiber being formed from a first material and surrounding a second coaxial fiber formed from a second material (sheath core fibers are taught). Jayaraman are silent regarding the fibers being 3D printed. However, it would have been obvious to use any of the well known methods of producing fibers including 3D printing in order to yield fibers quickly.
Jayaraman et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Jayaraman et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman et al. (US Pat. 6,381,482) in view of Connor et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0370320) in view of Ogasawara (US Pat. 3,924,045).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, The previous combination is relied upon as rejected in claims 1 and 3 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Jayaraman et al. are silent regarding the continuous fibers and the third material of the continuous fibers and the method of producing the continuous fibers. However, Ogasawara et al. teach a continuous fiber including at least two serial fibers with a first fiber of the at least two serial fibers formed from the first material and having a first end connected to a second end of the second serial fiber of the at least two serial fibers formed from the second material and wherein the continuous fiber comprises a third material different from the first and second material in order to provide varied properties across the fiber in the fabric and/or varied dyeing across the fabric. It would have been obvious to use the continuous fiber, composition and arrangement of the continuous fiber of Ogasawara et al. in the previous combination in order to provide varied properties across the fiber in the fabric and/or varied dyeing across the fabric and arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Although Jayaraman et al. does not disclose the process of making the continuous fibers, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Jayaraman et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fibers, Jayaraman et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fibers.
Further, it would have been obvious to use any of the well known methods of producing fibers including electrospinning in order to yield fibers with unique properties such as high surface area to volume ratio, flexibility or porosity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. (US Pat. 3,924,045) in view of Connor et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0370320).
Regarding claims 18-20, Ogasawara et al. teach a method for making a product from intelligent fibers with the method comprising spinning a continuous fiber wherein the continuous fiber includes at least three serial fibers wherein a first fiber formed from a first material and having a first end connected to a second end of a second serial fiber formed from a second material with the first and second serial fibers having different compositions and weaving the continuous fiber on a loom to form the product. Ogasawara et al. also teaches the third serial fiber is connected to an end of the second serial fiber and the product is a textile. Ogasawara teaches the method can use any known spinning method and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrospinning given the limited number of types of spinning and it is well known in the art in order to yield fibers with unique properties such as high surface area to volume ratio, flexibility or porosity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Ogasawara et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Ogasawara et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Ciluffo which was argued in the response for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2007/0089800 teaches a smart fabric.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789