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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 102 rejection, applicant argued at page 9 that “Clearly, in order to have a plot of the voltage over time illustrated in Fig. 11A, the output of the Xu sensor must be measured continuously (or at least sampled) between TO-T11. The present invention is directed to the fundamental method of making these individual sample measurements, not how the change in amplitude (i.e. pattern) of the series of measurements is monitored over time to assess wetness, like Fig 11 of Xu”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Xu teaches charging sensor from T1 to T2 and discharging sensor from T2 to T4 in Fig. 11, after second time period T4 measuring output of sensor V10 and V11 at time T10 and T11 and at time T10 to T11 the capacitor no longer being actively charged nor discharged in Fig. 11.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “not how the change in amplitude in series measurement”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant argued at page 9 that “Xu is very clear that it is trying to identify the peaks and troughs of the sensor output voltage that is continuously measured over time TO-T11, in order to identify when urination begins and ends:"...By the periodic charging and discharging operations, a series of peak value voltage V data information changing with the time can be obtained..." (second half of paragraph [0163]), and"...finally, the periodic charging and discharging peak value voltage V generated between two ends of the flexible electrodes 12 of the capacitance detection device 20 is increased, and a valley is formed in the curve. Assuming the voltage at a time point T2 is a valley value V2, a voltage value at a time point T3 is V3, and V3 is greater than V2 (for example, V3 is greater than V2 by 3%-30%, i.e., V3 is 103%-130% of V2), at this time, urination is considered stopped at the valley time point T2..." (second half of paragraph [0166]) Xu is identifying the pattern of sensor output over a continuous time period, to determine urination (and drying) events. However, this is not what is claimed in the present application. Applicant's method is concerned with how the controller operates at a sample measurement level, to obtain individual measurements from the sensor. That is, the claim language requires the measurement step of the sensor to occur, after an at least partial discharge step, and when the sensor is not being actively discharged (nor actively charged). Note that the claimed wording "active" denoted that these steps are initiated and controlled by the controller”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Xu teaches charging sensor from T1 to T2 and discharging sensor from T2 to T4 in Fig. 11, after second time period T4 measuring output of sensor V10 and V11 at time T10 and T11 and at time T10 to T11 the capacitor no longer being actively charged nor discharged in Fig. 11. Xu’s actively charged from period time T1 to T2 is also controlled by switch 24 in Fig. 10 and therefore switch 24 is controlled by controller.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant argued that at page 10 that “Accordingly, Xu clearly discloses that the sensor is charged, then measured (i.e. reading the values of V), and subsequently discharged. The cycle then repeats per second to result in the Fig. 11A plot of voltage over time (TO-T11). Therefore, amended claim 1 is clearly distinguished from Xu at this sample level, which requires charging, then at least partial discharging, followed by measurement (while not being actively discharged nor actively charged). When read in the context of the present specification, the claim language is clear. The claimed method is implemented by the controller and sequential logical steps of the method are clearly set out as being charge, discharge (at least partially), then measure”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Xu teaches charging sensor from T1 to T2 and after T2 discharging sensor from T2 to T4 in Fig. 11, after second time period T4 measuring output of sensor V10 and V11 at time T10 and T11 and at time T10 to T11 the capacitor no longer being actively charged nor discharged in Fig. 11. Xu’s actively charged from period time T1 to T2 is also controlled by switch 24 in Fig. 10 and therefore switch 24 is controlled by controller.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “not to take measurement while charging or discharging”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant argued that at pages 10-11 that “Even when turning to the Examiner's interpretation (at the longer TO-T11 time scale), Xu does not disclose the claimed steps as alleged. As noted above, in order to measure each point of the voltage-time curve of Fig. 11, a charge, then measure, and subsequent discharge step is completed (approximately on a per second timescale according to Xu). This is clearly described in Xu at paragraph [0163]. Accordingly, when the Examiner suggests (see pages 3, 4 & 7 of the Office Action) that the sensor of Xu is charged from T1 to T2, the sensor of Xu is discharged from T2 to T4, and the sensor of Xu is subsequently measured at T10 and T11 (while not being actively charged or discharged), the Examiner is incorrect. In fact, from T1 to T2 there are likely hundreds (or thousands) of samples each requiring the charge, measure, and subsequent discharge step taught by Xu. Accordingly, the Examiner's interpretation that this discloses the claimed invention is incorrect. Similarly, from T2 to T4, and T10 to T 11 etc. The important part (i.e. the novel part) is that the measurement is taken while not being charged/discharged, not the absence of measurements at other times. Xu clearly measures the sensor while charging. Any suggestion that the word "only" should be added to claims 1 and 11 as in "after the second period of time and only" is not only unnecessary but would go beyond what is necessary to distinguish from Xu. For example, the claims clearly say that the measurement occurs "while the sensor is no longer being actively charged nor actively discharged," and that the controller output is based on the measured output. Therefore, Applicant submits that in the context of the present specification, the independent claims 1 and 11, as amended, are not anticipated by Xu”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Xu teaches charging sensor from T1 to T2 and discharging sensor from T2 to T4 in Fig. 11, after second time period T4 measuring output of sensor V10 and V11 at time T10 and T11 and at time T10 to T11 the capacitor no longer being actively charged nor discharged in Fig. 11.
Furthermore, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “not to take measurement while charging or discharging”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore the rejection stands.
Therefore applicant’s arguments regarding 102 rejection are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0258643 A1; hereinafter Xu).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches a system for detecting or sensing moisture or wetness of an article to which the system is attached (system in Fig. 7-Fig. 13; See [0150]-[0170]), the system comprising:
a controller or processor (processor 28 in Fig. 13),
a sensor (sensor 10 in Fig. 7-Fig. 12), the sensor being configured to store an electrical charge, and wherein the electrical charge storing capacity of the sensor is based on the moisture or wetness of the article (See [0162]-[0163]),
wherein the controller is configured to:
charge the sensor for a first period of time (charge sensor 21 in first period of time T0 to T2 in Fig. 11B; See [0160]-[0166]), and after the first period of time actively at least partially discharge the sensor for a second period of time (after time T2 actively discharge sensor 21 from time T2 to T4 in fig. 11B; See [0160]-[0166]), and
after the second period of time, and while the sensor is no longer being actively charged nor actively discharged (after second period of time T4 sensor 21 no longer actively charged or discharged from T10 toT11 in Fig. 11; See [0163-[0164], [0171]), measure a output of the sensor, (measure output of sensor 21 V10 and V11 at time T10 to T11 after being actively charged and actively discharged in fig. 11B; ; See [0171]), the output of the sensor correlated to the wetness or moisture of the article (V10 and V11 correlates to wetness of article 10; See [0164]-[0172]),
wherein the controller is configured to determine an output indicative of the moisture or wetness of the article based on the measured output of the sensor (based on output voltage of V10 to V11 from time T10 to T11 controller determines saturation and saturation is for moisture in Fig. 11; See [0164]-[0171]).
Regarding Claim 2, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a first and a second plate separated by a dielectric layer (it is inherent property that capacitor C has first plate and second plate separated by dielectric in fig. 10; Se [0160]), and wherein the controller is configured to after the first period of time actively at least partially discharge the sensor by connecting the first and the second plate to substantially the same potential (controller connected capacitor C same potential by connecting switch 24 in Fig. 10; See [0163]).
Regarding Claim 3, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises one or more plates (sensor 21 has two plates in Fig. 10; See [0160]) and wherein when seen in a projection on a plane including the second plate, the shape of the projection of the first plate on the plane is substantially complementary with the shape of the second plate (two plates of 21 are same in Fig. 10), and first plate and second plate are spaced at a distance (d) (there is a distance between the plates of 21 in Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is discharged through a known resistance (discharge switch 24(K) has resistance in Fig. 10; See [0163]).
Regarding Claim 7, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output of the sensor is measured by an analog to digital converter (or via a voltage divider circuit) (analog to digital converter 27 in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 8, The system of claim 1, wherein said measurement of an output of the sensor occurs at a predetermined time (measurement of output V10 to V11 occurs at predetermined time from T10 to T11 in Fig. 11; See [0171]).
Regarding Claim 9, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises one or more switches, or one or more transistors configured to be controlled by said processor to charge and/or discharge the sensor (controller controls switch 24(K) to charge/discharge sensor 21 in fig. 10; See [0163]).
Regarding Claim 10, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the output indicative of the moisture or wetness of the article is further based on an initial base-line measurement (initial baseline is V0; See [0165]).
Regarding Claim 11, Xu teaches a processor implemented method for detecting or sensing moisture or wetness of an article (a processor implemented method in Fig. 7-Fig. 13; See [0150]-[0170]), the method comprising:
charging a sensor having one or more plates for a first period of time, and after the first period of time (charging sensor 21 in first period of time T0 to T2 in Fig. 11B; See [0160]-[0166]),
partially discharging the sensor for a second period of time (after time T2 partially discharge sensor 21 from time period T2 to T3 in fig. 11B; See [0160]-[0166]), and
after the second period of time, and while the sensor is no longer being actively charged not actively discharged (after second period of time T4 sensor 21 no longer actively charged or discharged from T10 toT11 in Fig. 11; See [0163-[0164], [0171]), measuring a output of the sensor (measure output of sensor 21 V10 and V11 at time T10 to T11 after being actively charged and actively discharged in fig. 11B; ; See [0171]), the output of the sensor correlated to the wetness or moisture of the article (V10 and V11 correlates to wetness of article 10; See [0164]-[0172]), and
determining an output indicative of the moisture or wetness of the article based on the measured output of the sensor (based on output voltage of V10 and V11 controller determines saturation and saturation is for moisture in Fig. 11; See [0164]-[0170]).
Regarding Claim 14, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor is discharged through a known resistance (discharge switch 24(K) has resistance in Fig. 10; See [0163]).
Regarding Claim 15, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the output of the sensor is measured via an analog to digital converter (or via a voltage divider circuit) (analog to digital converter 27 in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 16, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the processor is interfaced and/or connected to at least one memory element (processor 48/28 has memory in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 17, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein one or more switches, or one or more transistors, are configured to be controlled by said processor to charge and/or discharge the sensor (controller controls switch 24(K) to charge/discharge sensor 21 in fig. 10; See [0163]).
Regarding Claim 18, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the output indicative of the moisture or wetness of the article is further based on an initial base-line measurement (initial baseline is V0; See [0165]).
Regarding Claim 19, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the output indicative of the moisture or wetness of the article is based on a comparison between a first derivative of the output of the sensor and/or a second derivate of the output of the sensor (first derivative is voltage V10 at time T10 in fig. 11; See [0165]).
Regarding Claim 20, Xu teaches the method of claim 19, wherein an event signal is generated in response to the first derivative and/or second derivate satisfying a predetermined threshold (threshold is 70%-90% of V0; See [0165]).
Regarding Claim 21, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said measurement of an output of the sensor occurs at a predetermined time (measurement of output V10 to V11 occurs at predetermined time from T10 to T11 in Fig. 11; See [0171]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding Claim 4, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first period of time (See charging time in Fig. 11; See [0161]-[0162]), but Xu is silent about is: a) about 2 µs, b) about 5 µs, c) about 10 µs, d) about 20 µs, or e) about 30 µs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use first time period is: a) about 2 µs, b) about 5 µs, c) about 10 µs, d) about 20 µs, or e) about 30 µs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), in order to effectively measure capacitor voltage.
Regarding Claim 5, Xu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second period of time (See discharging time in Fig. 11; See [0161]-[0162]), but Xu is silent about is about 7 µs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use first time period is about 7 µs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), in order to effectively measure capacitor voltage.
Regarding Claim 12, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first period of time (See charging time in Fig. 11; See [0161]-[0162]), but Xu is silent about is: a) about 2 µs, b) about 5 µs, c) about 10 µs, d) about 20 µs, or e) about 30 µs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use first time period is: a) about 2 µs, b) about 5 µs, c) about 10 µs, d) about 20 µs, or e) about 30 µs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), in order to effectively measure capacitor voltage.
Regarding Claim 13, Xu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the second period of time (See discharging time in Fig. 11; See [0161]-[0162]), but Xu is silent about is about 7 µs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use first time period is about 7 µs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), in order to effectively measure capacitor voltage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights