DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/25/26. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5-6, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayaramen et al. (6,687,523).
With regard to claim 1, Jayaramen teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “A connector assembly comprising: a sheet-like base 20 that is flexible, the sheet-like base including a base body 20 and a tag portion 52 drawn from the base body 20; at least one terminal member 32 disposed on a front surface (Shown in figure 7) of the base body 20; at least one wire 34 disposed to extend from the front surface of the base body 20 to a front surface of the tag portion 52, the at least one wire 34 having one end thereof connected to the at least one terminal member 32 and another end thereof extending to the front surface of the tag portion 52; and a connector (42, 44) mounted on the front surface of the tag portion 52 and connected to the another end of the at least one wire 34, wherein the tag portion 52 is folded toward and fixed to the base body 20 such that a rear surface of the tag portion 52 faces a rear surface of the base body 20, whereby the connector is disposed on the rear surface side of the base body 20”.
With regard to claim 2, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the tag portion 52 that is folded is sewn to the base body 20 and thereby fixed to the base body 20”.
With regard to claim 3, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 5-19: “further comprising: a first fixing member 60 disposed on the rear surface side of the base body 20; and a second fixing member 64 disposed on the rear surface side of the tag portion 52 and fixed to the first fixing member 60, wherein the first fixing member 60 and the second fixing member 64 are fixed to each other, whereby the tag portion 52 that is folded is fixed to the base body 20”.
With regard to claim 5, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 5-19: “wherein the sheet-like base is formed of cloth of a garment”.
With regard to claim 6, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 20-30: “wherein the garment includes a front body and a back body that are sewn to each other, the base body 20 is formed of the cloth constituting one of the front body and the back body, and the tag portion 52 is drawn from a sewing portion of the front body or the back body to an outside of the garment”.
With regard to claim 12, Jayaramen teaches: “A garment comprising the connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 5-19: “wherein the sheet-like base is formed of at least part of cloth of the garment”.
With regard to claim 13, Jayaramen teaches: “The garment according to claim 12”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 20-30: “further comprising a front body and a back body that are sewn to each other, wherein the base body 20 is formed of the cloth constituting one of the front body and the back body, and the tag portion 52 is drawn from a sewing portion of the front body or the back body”.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaramen et al. (6,687,523).
With regard to claim 4, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen does not teach: “further comprising a connector accommodation portion disposed on the rear surface side of the base body, wherein the tag portion that is folded is accommodated together with the connector in the connector accommodation portion and thereby fixed to the base body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a connector accommodation portion disposed on the rear surface side of the base body holding the tag portion folded accommodated together with the connector in order to hold the connector between the base body and the tag. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 7, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 6”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the front surface of the base body 20 is constituted of a surface, facing an inner side of the garment, of the one of the front body and the back body”.
Jayaramen does not specifically teach: “the terminal member is composed of an electrode”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode as the terminal member, since using electrodes for medical sensors is well-known (Jayaramen, column 1 lines 24-27).
With regard to claim 8, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 6”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “the terminal member 32 is composed of a sensor”.
Jayaramen does not teach: “wherein the front surface of the base body is constituted of a surface, facing an outer side of the garment, of the one of the front body and the back body”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the front surface of the base body to face an outer side of the garment in order to allow inspection and replacement of the terminal members. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With regard to claim 9, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 8”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 20-30: “wherein the tag portion 52 that is folded is fixed to another one of the front body and the back body”.
With regard to claim 10, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 5-19: “the base body is formed of the cloth”.
Jayaramen does not teach: “wherein the garment includes a waist portion adjacent to an opening portion, the base body is formed of the cloth constituting the waist portion, the front surface of the base body is constituted of a surface of the waist portion facing an inner side thereof, and the tag portion is drawn from the opening portion to an outside of the garment”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reshape the garment to include a waist portion adjacent to an opening portion and the front surface of the base body being a surface of the waist portion facing an inner side thereof with the tab portion drawn from the opening portion to an outside of the garment in order to use the sensor terminal members of Jayaramen with different garments. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 11, Jayaramen teaches: “The connector assembly according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Jayaramen does not teach: “wherein the sheet-like base is formed of an insulating resin film”. However, in column 13 lines 30-37, Jayaramen teaches the use of an insulating resin in a sheet-like base. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin for the sheet-like base in order to keep the terminal members insulated from one another (Jayaramen, column 13 lines 30-37). Also, 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.
With regard to claim 14, Jayaramen teaches: “The garment according to claim 12”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9 and taught in column 5 lines 5-19: “the base body is formed of the cloth”.
Jayaramen does not teach: “further comprising a waist portion adjacent to an opening portion, wherein the base body is formed of the cloth constituting the waist portion, and the tag portion is drawn from the opening portion”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reshape the garment to include a waist portion adjacent to an opening portion the base body being a surface of the waist portion with the tab portion drawn from the opening portion in order to use the sensor terminal members of Jayaramen with different garments. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 15, Jayaramen teaches: “An electrical device with a pad comprising the connector assembly according to claim 11”, as shown above.
Jayaramen also teaches, as shown in figures 1-9: “wherein the at least one terminal member 32… having a pad-like shape”.
Jayaramen does not teach the terminal member “is composed of an electrode”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode as the terminal member, since using electrodes for medical sensors is well-known (Jayaramen, column 1 lines 24-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited reference Jayaramen does not teach the tag portion folded toward and fixed to the base body such that a rear surface of the tag portion faces a rear surface of the base body because the flaps 52 are overlapped and connected to close the fabric, but the rear surface of flaps do not face the rear surface of the base body. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since if the flaps 52 are folded to overlap opposite the rear of the base body, then the rear surface of the flaps 52 are then facing the rear surface of the base body as claimed. The language of the claim does not distinguish the claim from the cited reference.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights