DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant argues that the on-garment device taught by Chahine et al. (US 20200367823 A1, 2020-11-26) (hereinafter “Chahine”) is local, rather than remote. See Remarks at 2. Applicant writes:
Chahine's on-garment controller device 40 locally "receiv[es] electrical EMG signals ... [and] supply [EMS] signals" (Chahine ¶ [0043]) and can "transmit the collected signal data ... to an external computer device ... for viewing and/or further processing" (¶ [0052]). While Chahine notes that device 40 "can be in communication ... with ...
networked devices 140" that may "provid[e] ... signal data" (¶ [0048]), Chahine does not disclose receiving, from a remote therapy controller, a therapeutic payload data structure that is decoded and used to actuate a particular garment actuator. The two-garment example likewise uses IMU data from one garment to inform the other garment's local controller 40, which then "generate[s] signal data for driving ... EMS actuators" (¶ [0056]), not remote payload-driven actuation.
Id.
Applicant’s first argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
The terms “remote” and “local,” in the context of the computer and networking art, refers inter alia to whether a peripheral (e.g., sensor) is connected via wires (locally) or wirelessly (remote) to a device.
Chahine teaches that sensors can be networked wirelessly to the controller unit 40.. See, e.g., [0051] (“Referring again to FIG. 10, optionally positioned on the garment 10 or otherwise coupled thereto, for example on an exterior surface 13 (i.e. outward facing from the wearer 8), is series of electrical components 15 including the computer device 40 including a computer processor 116, a memory 118 for executing stored instructions for receiving and processing of data obtained from the sensors 32,34,36,38,39,41,43, as well as communicating via a network interface 120 with the network 222 (e.g. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, attached wired cable, etc.) as well as sending and receiving electrical signals from the sensors 32,34,36,38,39,41,43.”) (emphases added). Because the sensors are wirelessly networked, they are considered remote with respect to the controller unit 40.
Second, Applicant requests documentary evidence for Examiner’s Official Notice that “peripherals, sensors, and actuators are typically designated by unique identifiers that allow them to be controlled, sample, or otherwise accessed.” See Remarks at 3.
Consider the sensors that are controlled, sampled, or otherwise accessed by a Wi-Fi network taught by Chahine, as discussed above. In a Wi-Fi network, devices (e.g., laptops, sensors) are typically assigned IP addresses within a LAN. Applicant can easily verify that this is true by invoking the command “ipconfig” in a Windows terminal (“cmd”) to display their computer’s unique identifier(s) (e.g., IP address, Ethernet address) within the Wi-Fi network. Mutatis mutandis for Mac or Linux computers.\
Note that data transferred via Wi-Fi networks use the TCP/IP protocol, involving coding/decoding of data packets.
Third, Applicant argues that Covalin (US 8560075 B2, 2013-10-15) does not teach an actuator that is a “drug dispenser” that “dispenses a drug transdermally” (claims 9-10; similarly “medication dispenser'” in claim 23). See Remarks at 3.
Applicant’s third argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
The term “medicine” (and its cognate “medication”) is defined as a substance or preparation used in treating disease. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine. And the term “drug” is defined as a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drug. Because Covalin teaches a gel dispenser that dispenses a gel defined as a substance used in treating disease, Covalin teaches a medication dispenser. And because a drug is defined as a substance used as a medication, Covalin also teaches a drug dispenser.
Fourth, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a controller whose “control interface receives said control signals from another smart garment worn by an operator of the controller,” where that “another smart garment includes an actuator” (claims 17-18). See Remarks at 3. Specifically, Applicant writes:
[N]either Chahine nor Coval in teaches or suggests a controller that receives control
signals from another smart garment worn by an operator, nor that such an operator-worn
garment includes an actuator. Chahine's multi-garment examples involve garments worn by the same patient to coordinate stimulation (e.g., Chahine paras. [0056], [0062]-[0063]), not an operator-worn control garment. Covalin likewise does not disclose an operator-worn smart garment providing control signals to a controller for remote actuation of another garment. The stated rationale to improve usability remains conclusory and lacks the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the specific missing limitations.
Id.
Applicant’s fourth argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Chahine teaches that “the garment 10 can be provided as a pair of garments 10a, b, see FIG. 11, such that signal data collected from the IMU 32 (and/or EMG sensors 36) of one garment 10a can be used as signal input for the controller device 40 of garment 10b (e.g. as communicated by example via the network interface 120—see FIG. 10, over the communications network 222), in order to generate signal data for driving of the EMS actuators 38 of the garment 10b. In this manner, the deemed normal operation of a normal/healthy foot (wearing garment 10a) can be used as a model for stimulating the activity of the deemed injured or unhealthy foot wearing the garment 10b.” See [0056] (emphasis added). Note that garments 10a and 10b instrument the left feet of the operator and patient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Chahine et al. (US 20200367823 A1, 2020-11-26) (hereinafter “Chahine”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 11-16, and 19-22, as discussed above (Response to Arguments incorporated by reference herein), Chahine teaches a system for remote delivery of therapy, the system comprising: a garment comprising: a plurality of conductive fibres interlaced with a plurality of non-conductive fibres, the conductive fibres defining a plurality of signal paths; and a plurality of actuators (e.g., 38, 39) disposed to administer therapeutic steps to a wearer of the garment. a computing device comprising: a network interface (e.g., 120); a signal interface in signal communication with the plurality of actuators by way of said plurality of signal paths (e.g., [0045]); at least one memory storing processor-executable instructions; and at least one processor in communication with said at least one memory (e.g., 116), said at least one processor configured to execute said instructions to: receive a therapeutic payload data structure by way of said network interface from a remote therapy controller (e.g., 40, 42); process said therapeutic payload data structure to decode a therapeutic signal for actuating at least a given actuator of the plurality of actuators (e.g., 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43), the therapeutic signal reflective of a therapeutic step (e.g., [0045]); and activate said given actuator (e.g., 38) using the decoded therapeutic signal to administer said therapeutic step to the wearer of the garment (e.g., [0038]) (as recited in claim 1); wherein the given actuator comprises an electrode for administering functional electrical stimulation (FES) signals to the wearer of said garment and said therapeutic signal comprises an FES signal (e.g., [0038], [0047]) (as recited in claims 2, 13, and 21); wherein said electrode comprises conductive fibres interlaced with said non-conductive fibres of said garment (e.g., [0007]-[0008]) (as recited in claim 2); wherein said garment further comprises a plurality of sensors disposed to contact a wearer when said garment is worn (e.g., 32, 34) (as recited in claim 4); wherein said plurality of sensors (e.g., 36) comprises a sensor for measuring an electrophysiological signal (e.g., [0037]) (as recited in claim 5); wherein said plurality of sensors comprises a sensor for measuring a biomechanical signal (e.g., [0037]) (as recited in claim 6); wherein said processor is further configured to: encode a signal sensed from at least one of the plurality of sensors to generate a feedback data structure, and transmit said feedback data structure to said remote therapy controller (e.g., [0057]) (as recited in claim 7); wherein said actuator comprises a heater (e.g., [0046]) (as recited in claims 8, 22); wherein said actuator comprises an actuator for imparting mechanical vibration (e.g., [0049]) (as recited in claim 11); as discussed above, a controller for remote delivery of therapy by way of a smart garment, the controller comprising: a control interface ;a network interface (e.g., 120); at least one memory storing processor-executable instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (e.g., 116), the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-executable instructions to: receive a control signal by way of the control interface; generate a therapeutic payload data structure upon processing the control signal, the therapeutic payload data structure comprising: an identifier of a particular actuator disposed at a pre-defined location on said smart garment, and control data for actuating said particular actuator to administer a therapeutic signal to a wearer of the smart garment; and transmit said therapeutic payload data structure by way of the network to a receiver in communication with said smart garment (e.g., [0038], [0045]) (Official Notice is given that peripherals, sensors, and actuators are typically designated by unique identifiers that allow them to be controlled, sample, or otherwise accessed) (as recited in claim 12); wherein said at least one processor is further configured to receive a feedback data structure from a transmitter in communication with said smart garment by way of said network interface (e.g., [0057]) (as recited in claim 14); wherein said feedback data structure comprises data encoding an electrophysiological signal from the wearer of said smart garment (e.g., [0037]) (as recited in claim 15); wherein said feedback data structure comprises data encoding an biomechanical signal from the wearer of said smart garment (e.g., [0037]) (as recited in claim 16); as discussed above, wherein said actuator includes a haptic actuator. 20.A method of delivering therapy remotely, said method comprising: providing, at a first location, a smart garment, said smart garment comprising: a plurality of conductive fibres interlaced with a plurality of non-conductive fibres, the conductive fibres defining a plurality of signal paths; and a plurality of actuators disposed to contact a wearer when the garment is worn; providing, at a second location, a controller, said controller comprising: an interface for receiving a signal for controlling a given actuator of said plurality of actuators; transmitting said signal from said second location to said first location by way of a network; and administering said signal to a wearer of said smart garment by way of said given actuator (as recited in claim 19).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10, 17-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chahine, as applied to claims 1 and 20, and further in view of in view of Covalin (US 8560075 B2, 2013-10-15).
Regarding claims 9-10, 17-18, and 23, as discussed above (Response to Arguments incorporated by reference herein), Chahine teaches a system for remote delivery of therapy, except comprising drug dispenser and except the control interface receives said control signals from another smart garment worn by an operator of the controller. Covalin teaches garments with a drug dispenser. See, e.g., Fig. 4 and associated text. Covalin also teaches connection of multi-portion devices. See, e.g., 6:56-65.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Covalin with the invetion taught by Chahine such that wherein said actuator comprises a drug dispenser (as recited in claim 9); wherein said drug dispenser dispenses a drug transdermally (as recited in claim 10); wherein the control interface receives said control signals from another smart garment worn by an operator of the controller (as recited in claim 17); wherein said another smart garment includes an actuator (as recited in claim 18); wherein said actuator comprises a medication dispenser (as recited in claim 23) in order to improve the usability of the device for more sorts of treatment.
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 extension fee 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 SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights