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 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “400” has been used to designate both a conductive loop and garment (see paragraphs [0024],[0025]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the somatosensory ring must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Examiner acknowledges that element (406) is considered the somatosensory ring in Figure 4, but what is indicated as the ring is not reasonably a ring, and is no different in shape than the conductive wiring (403) also indicated in Figure 4 and described in paragraph [0024]. A reasonably complete illustration of this ring is necessary for an understanding of the invention, especially in understanding how the ring is “around” the conductive wires of Claim 1, and how the ring can allow a user to sense anything via the ring, as is required in the definition of “somatosensory” as explained in more detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “A utility detecting antenna array comprising: providing a worker donning at least two of the garments provided in claim 11” on lines 1-2 is directed to and encompasses a human organism. While applicant is permitted to claim the action of human in a method claim, apparatus claims are not directed towards action, and instead are directed towards the final product and what it is capable or configured to perform. Claim 14 is an apparatus claim, and is therefore directed towards the final product, and not any action or use thereof. To that extent, when applicant claims that the above array is “comprising … a worker,” applicant must the claim must reasonably be encompassing and requiring the worker as part of the final product. Such a claim recitation therefore is directed to and encompasses a human being, as it is not directed towards the action of a human but rather the human being itself. Such a claim recitation is not permitted as claims cannot be directed to or encompass a human as part of the final product or apparatus as explained in the above as human organisms are excluded from patentable subject matter. This claim therefore stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for encompassing and being directed towards a human organism, but where such a claim is not permitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “A somatosensory system comprising: a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring; and a processor; where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas; and the processor is connected to the conductive wire loop” on lines 1-6 lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant claims “a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring,” but where the originally disclosure does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which the conductive wire loop includes conductive wire antennas. As is well known in the art, a loop, also known as a coil or winding, comprises one or more loops or turns of wire to form the loop. Here, applicant is claiming that the loop includes plural conductive wire antennas, but where, at most, applicant shows wires attached to different sides of a rectangle indicated by element 401. This issue is raised because Figure 4 shows element (400) as rectangular, but Figure 5 shows element (400) as circular. To that extent, applicant does not reasonably show the manner in which the conductive wires (403) are implemented such that they are part of a conductive loop. It cannot be reasonably discerned where the conductive wires are attached or located relative to the loop, in that it cannot be reasonably discerned if they themselves form the loop, or merely interconnected across the loop. It also cannot be reasonably discerned whether these wires are connecting across a rectangular shape or circular shape. As such, the manner in which an conductive wires are implemented as part of the conductive loop are not reasonably disclosed, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which they are implemented and how they relate to the conductive loop.
2) Applicant further claims that the loop includes a somatosensory ring. However, no “ring” is disclosed, and the use of the term “somatosensory” is not further not reasonably explained or disclosed. First, applicant explains that element (406) in Figure 4 is a somatosensory ring; however, such a ring is shown in the exact same way as the wires (403) in Figure 4. The wires (403) are not described as a ring, and as best understood, these wires do not form a loop or ring shape. Similarly, the element (406) indicated as a somatosensory ring is also not reasonably a ring, and it is not reasonably disclosed to be different than any of the other conductive wires indicated at (403) in Figure 4. Applicant does not reasonably disclose a somatosensory ring, in that no element is reasonably disclosed to be such a ring. Furthermore, the definition of the term “somatosensory” is “Of or relating to the perception of sensory stimuli from the skin and internal organs” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=somatosensory. To that extent, the Examiner respectfully notes that nothing about the wires or loop or ring have reasonably been explained such that the ring would reasonably cause a person or perceive any form of stimulus. Note that there is a difference between a person wearing a vest that has wiring that allows it to detect a magnetic field, and then provide electrical signals to a processing device to then provide data to a user regarding any detection, as opposed to the person actually feeling or otherwise perceiving the magnetic field detection distinct from any displaying or indication of the data from the processor. As best understood, merely providing conductive wiring would not allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to perceive any magnetic field without something more, in the same way that a person of ordinary skill in the art, holding a metal ring, would not reasonably be able to perceive any magnetic field from an underground utility. That stated, the ring has not been disclosed to be conductive, and no detail about the ring has reasonably been provided. As such, the recitation of a somatosensory ring lacks proper written description, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize any device of the disclosure that would allow a person to use their senses to detect anything, and because a person of ordinary skill would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the ring itself was implemented. Second, applicant does not reasonably disclose that manner that this “ring” is part of the overall conductive loop. The somatosensory ring is shown as a conductive wire, and thus in order to be a loop more of this somatosensory ring must exist. However, applicant does not reasonably show or explain where the complete ring exists, or the manner in which this complete ring is connected to be part of the overall conductive loop. As such, the recitation of a somatosensory ring as part of the conductive loop lacks proper written description, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize any ring as part of the loop or the manner that such a loop includes the ring.
3) Applicant claims that “the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas,” but where no somatosensory ring is shown or explained to be positioned around the conductive wire antennas. As seen in Figure 4, the wire indicated for the somatosensory ring is merely above the otherwise identical wiring for the conductive wire antennas. Applicant does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas, and a person of ordinary skill would not reasonably recognize the manner in which this feature was implemented.
4) The phrase “the processor is connected to the conductive wire loop” lacks proper written description. At issue here is that the manner in which the process is connected to the conductive wire loop is not reasonably disclosed. As best understood, applicant shows two processors (404) and (405) in Figure 4. However, none of these processors are connected to the conductive wire loop. Instead, these processors are mere shown as boxes, and are show situated on or proximate antennas (402),(403), but these antennas, as best understood, are not the conductive wire loop. This issue is raised because, as best understood, the manner in which applicant connects to the wire loop is significant, as other elements also connect to the wire loop (401). As such, where the processor(s) connect to the loop is significant as it will control what data the processor(s) can receive, and the location of where the processor(s) connects to the loop will reasonably change the types of signals it receives. To that extent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the above claim feature.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features because such a person would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implemented the above claim features.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the antennas may be selected from anyone of the following: a conductive wire antenna, a ferreous core, a non-ferreous core or a fractal antenna” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the antennas may be selected from any of the above options. First, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which a fractal antenna can be reasonably be implemented as the antennas. A fractal antenna would reasonably require a complete redesign of the straight wire antennas shown in Figure 4, but where applicant does not reasonably show or explain the manner in which this fractal antenna is or can be implemented with the loop antenna. Second, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in all of the antenna options can be implemented, such as the use of a ferreous or non-ferreous core. While a wire can act as an antenna, the use of a core, especially a magnetic ferrous core, will not reasonably operate in the same manner. A ferrous core, for example, will become a magnet when energized, thus acting as an electromagnet, where as a non-ferrous core will act more as a wire. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which these various and different options are implemented as the conductive wire antennas as part of a conductive loop as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features because such a person would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implemented the above claim features.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “an amplifier connected to the processor; wherein the amplifier is configured to process somatosensory information received from the somatosensory ring” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the amplifier is connected to the processor, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner that this amplifier is implemented such that it can receive any information from the ring, and also be connected to the processor. The Examiner is not raising an issue with regard to the basic concept of connecting an amplifier to an object. However, the issue here is that applicant is not merely connecting the amplifier to the processor or to the ring. Instead, similar to the above noted issue with regard to the processor being connected to the conductive loop, the manner in which the amplifier is connected to the ring will change the type of signals it receives. For example, as best understood, the ring is a conductive wire attached across the conductive loop, seen as element (406) attached across element (401) in Figure 4. However, this does not reasonably create or demonstrate any position for which an amplifier to connect to in order to receive information from the ring (406). Applicant does not reasonably explain whether the amplifier is attached at the ends of the ring (406), or even the manner that would be implemented, as a ring does not reasonably have ends. Applicant’s amplifier could also be attached to the vertical wires that extend away from the ring (406) in Figure 4, thus also providing a different manner of connection, but one that would not necessary provide the same signals to the amplifier. As such, the manner in which any amplifier is attached to ring (406) is not reasonably disclosed, but where the location of any such attachment is significant. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is attaching the amplifier as claimed, and thus would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
2) Applicant does not reasonably demonstrate what “somatosensory information” is in light of the disclosure. As explained above, any such information must be information that can reasonably be discerned with human senses, but as best understood, a human would not reasonably sense anything from the ring, and applicant does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such a feature is implemented. To that extent, what this information is, in light of the disclosure, is not reasonably explained. Furthermore, as best understood, the claimed “ring” is the same thing as the claimed antennas. To that extent, applicant does not reasonably explain why the ring would provide the above somatosensory information, but where the conductive wires are not disclosed to provide such information. To that extent, applicant does not reasonably explain why certain wires provide one type of information, and other wire or wires provide a second type of information.
3) Applicant is claiming that the amplifier is configured to “process somatosensory information,” but where the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the amplifier is configured to process such information. An amplifier is not reasonably a processor, and thus would not reasonably “process” the claimed information. Without further explanation, and amplifier would instead only amplifier any signal or information provided to it. As such, to the extent that the amplifier is intended to do more than merely amplify a signal, the original disclosure does not reasonably provide proper written description for such a feature, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the processor is configured to compute strength and frequency of all received electromagnetic data; and the processor is configured to compute a location of a radiation source based on the received electromagnetic data” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any strength or frequency is determined, let alone the manner in which the strength and frequency of “all” received electromagnetic data is computed. Applicant neither references any technique applicant perceives to be well-known to implement such a feature, nor reasonably provides any explanation as to the manner that applicant implements such a feature. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not readably recognize the manner in which applicant’s processor is capable of computing the strength and frequency of all possible received electromagnetic data.
2) Similarly, applicant is claiming that the processor is configured to compute a location based on all possible received electromagnetic data, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements such a claim feature. Applicant neither references any technique applicant perceives to be well-known to implement such a feature, nor reasonably provides any explanation as to the manner that applicant implements such a feature. While applicant does disclose that location can be calculated by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands, such a disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner that applicant implements such a classifying, or how categorizing data into what are presumably frequency bands allows for any form of location to be computed. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not readably recognize the manner in which applicant’s processor is capable of computing the location based on all possible received electromagnetic data as claimed.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the processor computes the location of a radiation source by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description. While applicant does disclose that location can be calculated by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands, such a disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner that applicant implements such a classifying, or how categorizing data into what are presumably frequency bands allows for any form of location to be computed. Applicant does not reasonably provide a sufficient explanation as to the manner in which applicant is performing any type of classifying, such as what the classifying would include, along with how such classifying allows or is used to compute the location of any radiation source. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements the claim feature in order to establish possession.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the processor is configured to communicate with a geographic information system or a global positioning system” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description. At issue here is that while a global positioning system is a well-known device, a geographic information system is not reasonably well-known. Applicant is distinguishing between the two systems, and a geographic information system does not reasonably identify any particular well-known technology distinct from a GPS system, and applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which such a system is implemented. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which this feature is implemented to establish possession.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “received electromagnetic data can be transferred by wireless or wired means or stored; and the application-specific integrated circuit or the central processing unit further includes a memory to store the received electromagnetic data” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which the data can be transfer wirelessly or wired. Applicant does not reasonably explain any reasonably mechanism that would allow for such a claim feature. For example, applicant does not identify a single well-known device that could be used for wireless data transfer, nor explain what device or devices implement or otherwise communicate with such a device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing either form of communication to demonstrate possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the stored data can be transferred by wireless or wired communication, or by removable storage media” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which the data can be transfer wirelessly, wired, or the manner in which any removable storage media can be implemented. Applicant does not reasonably explain any reasonably mechanism that would allow for such a claim feature. For example, applicant does not identify a single well-known device that could be used for wireless data transfer, nor explain what device or devices implement or otherwise communicate with such a device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing either form of communication to demonstrate possession of the claim feature.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for 1) a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring; where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas” on lines 2-6 of Claim 1; 2) “the processor is configured to compute strength and frequency of all received electromagnetic data; the processor is configured to compute a location of a radiation source based on the received electromagnetic data” on lines 1-3 of Claim 4; and 3) “the processor computes the location of a radiation source by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands” on lines 1-2 of Claim 5. Specifically, the Examiner does not find any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above somatosensory ring or the manner in which it is positioned around the conductive wire antennas, and the manner in which the processor is configured to compute the strength and frequency from all reasonably possible received electromagnetic data and to subsequently use all of this data to identify a location of a radiation source, including how applicant performs any type of classification into discrete bands and uses such classification as part of the location computation as claimed. This is a scope of enablement rejection because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention commensurate with the scope of the claims without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability or unpredictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction or guidance presented by invent tor;
(G) The existence or absence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation necessary.
See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
MPEP §2164.01(a)
As to factor (A), the Examiner notes that the claims 1-17 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to how applicant is implementing a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring; where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas, how the processor is configured to compute strength and frequency of all received electromagnetic data; how the processor is configured to compute a location of a radiation source based on the received electromagnetic data, and how the processor computes the location of a radiation source by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands and as such claims 1-17 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish the above claim features.
As to factor (G), the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided sufficient working examples via the specification commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant does not provide any example of how applicant implements a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring; where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas. The specification is silent as to how applicant implements the somatosensory ring, such as what the ring itself is, or how it generates anything that can be perceived by any sense of a user. What applicant identifies as the somatosensory ring is no different than what applicant identifies as a conductive wire, and the original disclosure does not describe the wire as a ring. Applicant further does not reasonably show such a ring around conductive wires as claimed, and instead only shows a wire, identified as the somatosensory ring, next to other conductive wires as seen in Figure 4, for example. Similarly, the original disclosure is does not reasonably disclose how applicant’s processor is configured to compute the strength and frequency of any signal, and subsequent location of based on the received data, let alone the determination of strength, frequency, and location from all reasonably detectable signals, and therefore the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed features. While applicant does disclose that location can be calculated by classifying the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands, such a disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner that applicant implements such a classifying, or how categorizing data into what are presumably frequency bands allows for any form of location to be computed.
As to factor (H), the Examiner notes that the quantity of experimentation need is high. Applicant provides no examples or explanation as to how applicant is implementing somatosensory ring. Applicant further does not provide any details for such a feature as explained above. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify how such a ring can be implemented, and how a conductive loop can include such a ring, along with how the ring can be positioned around the conductive wires, including independently developing the software and/or hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions. Similarly, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose how applicant’s processor is configured to compute the strength and frequency of any signal, and subsequent location of based on the received data, let alone the determination of strength, frequency, and location from all reasonably detectable signals, Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify how such a processor can be implemented to reasonably compute the strength and frequency of all reasonably detectable signals, and the subsequently computing of a location based on those signals by way of a classification of the received electromagnetic data into discreet bands, including independently developing the software and/or hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions.
In view of the forgoing, the Examiner finds that the unbounded modes of operation are directed to an invention for which no working examples have been provided commensurate with the scope of the claims. Based on the Wands factors (A), (G), and (H), the Examiner concludes that applicant's specification does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner notes that the claimed features encompass any and all structures and/or acts for achieving their results and operation, including those which were not what the applicant had invented and those which could be invented in the future. As such, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) for lacking an enabling disclosure commensurate with the scope of the claims.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-17 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “A somatosensory system comprising: a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas and a somatosensory ring; and a processor; where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas; and the processor is connected to the conductive wire loop” on lines 1-6 is indefinite.
1) As explained in the above 112(a) rejection, applicant does not reasonably explain what applicant means by a somatosensory ring, how such a ring is somatosensory, how the ring itself is implemented, how the ring is positioned around the conductive wires, or how the ring is part of the conductive wire loop. As such, it is unclear how this claim phrase should be interpreted, as no object is reasonably disclosed that can be perceived the human senses, no actual ring is shown or explained, no somatosensory ring is shown or reasonably explained to be part of a conductive loop, and no somatosensory ring is reasonably shown “around” conductive wires as claimed. As best understood, applicant is disclosing a series of conductive wires that are part of an overall conductive loop, including the somatosensory ring, which is also, as best understood, one of the conductive wires (403) as seen in Figure 4. While the manner in which they are interconnected with the loop or implemented with respect to each other is unclear, this phrase is being interpreted, consistent with applicant’s Figure 4, to mean that a conductive loop (401) exists that includes electrically conductive wires (e.g. 403,406), any one of which can be said to be the somatosensory ring (406), and where such a wire or wires (406) can be said to be “around” other wires even if they are only next to those wires.
2) The shape of the conductive wire loop is unclear. In Figure 4, the wire loop (400) is depicted as rectangular. However, in Figure 5 it is depicted as circular. Furthermore, it is unclear whether element 400 or 401 represent the wire loop, as applicant in one instance considers 400 to be the wire loop, but in another, considers 400 to be a garment (see paragraphs [0024],[0025]).
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the orientation of the antennas is known; and the antennas may be selected from anyone of the following: a conductive wire antenna, a ferreous core, a non-ferreous core or a fractal antenna on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) No orientation was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what orientation this phrase is referencing.
2) The use of the term “may” is indefinite because it does not reasonably require any component to be implemented in a definite manner. For example, the term “can” is reasonably definite, because whether or not any particular antenna is or not implemented, such an antenna at least “can” be done and “can be implemented. However, claiming that any antenna “may” be done or implemented is not definite, because it is instead only claiming that such a feature is possible, but not that it ever does or could occur. This phrase is therefore indefinite because it is unclear whether any of the above features are required, or if it is sufficient that it is “possible” that they be used.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the processor is configured to communicate with a geographic information system or a global positioning system” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that it is unclear whether a geographic information system or a global positioning system are required in the claim. A processor being able to or configured to communicate with these systems does not reasonably require these systems. As such, the above phrase is indefinite to the extent that it is unclear whether applicant intends these systems to be positively recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that these systems are not positively recited, and what is required is a processor that is reasonably designed such that it can communicate with such systems should they be present.
2) The metes and bounds of what a geographic information system includes are unclear. Applicant distinguishes between this system and a GPS, and thus applicant’s scope for a geographic information system is distinct from that of GPS, but where applicant does not reasonably establish what the metes and bounds of this scope would include and exclude. This phrase is therefore indefinite.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the processor may be an application-specific integrated circuit or a central processing unit” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. The use of the term “may” is indefinite because it does not reasonably require any component to be implemented in a definite manner. For example, the term “can” is reasonably definite, because whether or not any particular processor is or not implemented, such an processor at least “can” be one of the devices listed implemented. However, claiming that any processor “may” be one of the above devices neither states that it is one of the above devices, nor limits the processor to any particular device. Meaning claiming that the processor may be an ASIC or CPU does not mean or require that it is either, and instead it could also be some other undisclosed or unclaimed component. Such a feature therefore renders the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “received electromagnetic data can be transferred by wireless or wired means or stored; and the application-specific integrated circuit or the central processing unit further includes a memory to store the received electromagnetic data” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant already claims received electromagnetic data in Claim 4, but applicant is distinctly reciting new electromagnetic data in the above phrase. As best understood, the above data is the same data as was previously reciting, and thus the difference and relationship between the two distinct received electromagnetic data recitations are unclear.
2) Applicant claims “the received electromagnetic data,” but more than one received electromagnetic data was previously recited. It is therefore unclear which data this phrase is referencing.
3) Applicant claims that received electromagnetic data can be transferred by wireless or wired means or stored, but applicant does not reasonably identify any particular device that is reasonably capable of or otherwise configured to communicate such data wirelessly, by wired means, or to store the data. Apparatus claims cannot recite function without a device that is configured or otherwise connected to the function because a function with such a device is essentially a method step. Reciting method steps in an apparatus claim are indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). As such, it is unclear what structural feature of the claim is reasonably capable of and intended to implement the above claim feature.
4) Applicant then claims the presence of a memory to store the received electromagnetic data, but such a recitation is distinctly recited from the already recited “store” option on lines 1-2 of the claim. As best understood, the memory would be the device that is used for storing the data, but where the memory is being distinctly recited from the previously recited storing of the data. The difference and relationship between the initial storage of the data and the later recitation of the memory intended to store the data are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the stored data can be transferred by wireless or wired communication, or by removable storage media” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) Applicant recites two distinct stored data recitations in Claim 8, and it is unclear which of these two stored data recitations are being referred to with the above phrase.
2) Applicant claims that received electromagnetic data can be transferred by wireless or wired means or removable storage media, but applicant does not reasonably identify any particular device that is reasonably capable of or otherwise configured to communicate such data wirelessly, by wired means, or via removeable storage media. Apparatus claims cannot recite function without a device that is configured or otherwise connected to the function because a function with such a device is essentially a method step. Reciting method steps in an apparatus claim are indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). As such, it is unclear what structural feature of the claim is reasonably capable of and intended to implement the above claim feature.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “The utility detecting garment of claim 9 where the garment further comprises at least one of the following: a pair of pants, a pair of shoes, a shirt, a jacket, outerwear, headwear, or boots” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Claim 9 is not directed towards a utility detecting garment, and instead Claim 10 is directed towards such a feature. As such, it is unclear what utility detecting garment and what garment this phrase is referencing, as no such garment was previously recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the somatosensory system of Claim 1 is intended to be capable of being implemented in one of the above garments, but where none are positively recited in the claim.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “The article of claim 12 where at least one article is selected from: a backpack, a bag, a tarp case, or cladding” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) Claim 12 recites two distinct “article” recitations, and it is unclear which of these two articles the above phrase is referencing.
2) The phrase recites “at least one article,” but such a recitation is indefinite because this phrase distinctly reciting this article from any previous article, but where, as best understood, this article is intended to include the article of Claim 12, rendering the difference and relationship between the distinct article recitations unclear.
3) To the extent that applicant intends this phrase include more than one article, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear how an initially recitation of “an article” can reasonably include more than one article. For example, reciting “a shirt” would not reasonably include more than one shirt. As such, it is unclear what applicant means by reciting “at least one article.”
4) It is unclear what component or components includes the above claimed at least one article. Applicant not further limits or nor links the above claimed at least one article to any previously recited claim, and instead merely states the manner in which at least one article is selected. The relationship between this at least one article and any of the previously recited claim features are therefore unclear.
5) The metes and bounds of the “cladding” recitation are unclear. Such a term is defined to mean “1. A metal coating bonded onto another metal under high pressure and temperature” or 2. The process of forming such a coating” or 3. A protective or insulating layer fixed to the outside of a building or another structure” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cladding. However, none of these terms reasonably pertains to clothing or any form of wearable article. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant means by cladding in light of the disclosure, and the metes and bounds of such a phrase are therefore unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting any covering material, such as the top of a shoe or pants to be cladding.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “A utility detecting antenna array comprising: providing a worker donning at least two of the garments provided in claim 11” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what new limitations are being recited in the claim. As explained in the above 101 rejection, the claim cannot require a person (worker) as claims cannot encompass or be directed towards a human organism. However, the above claim limitations do require such person. It is therefore unclear whether this claim does require a human being wearing any of the articles as claimed, or if the claim only requires the articles. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the claim only requires the articles.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “A method for passively receiving electromagnetic data by passing the somatosensory system of claim 8 through a magnetic field” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant already claims received electromagnetic data in Claims 4 and 8, but applicant is distinctly reciting new electromagnetic data in the above phrase. As best understood, the above data is the same data as was previously reciting, and thus the difference and relationship between the three distinct received electromagnetic data recitations are unclear.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayasuriya (US 2015/0185352 A1).
As to Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
287
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jayasuriya discloses A somatosensory system comprising: a conducting wire loop including: conductive wire antennas (coils (5)) and a somatosensory ring (see above figure), (Figure 4), (Paragraph [0029] / note coil (5) can be formed from plural coils); and a processor (6) (Paragraph [0029] / note the electronic module detects the hidden metal object and therefore must reasonably be a processor that processes the signal from the coils to detect the object); where the somatosensory ring is positioned around the conductive wire antennas (see above figure); and the processor is connected to the conductive wire loop (see above figure), (Figure 4), (Paragraphs [0028],[0029]).
(Note: As explained in the above 112(a) and (b) rejections, applicant does not reasonably disclose what the above ring is, the manner in which it is implemented or is around any of the wires, or any other sufficient details to reasonably discern the manner in which the above claim features are implemented such that the scope of the claim features are clear. Because applicant discloses the somatosensory ring as a straight wire attached to what is, as best understood, a conductive loop, the above claim phrase is reasonable because the prior art also discloses a straight wire attached to the conductive loop. Because applicant is interpreting such a connection to state that the loop includes the ring, the prior art is being interpreted in a similar manner).
As to Claim 2,
Jayasuriya discloses the orientation of the antennas is known; and the antennas may be selected from anyone of the following: a conductive wire antenna, a ferreous core, a non-ferreous core or a fractal antenna (Figure 4 / note the antennas are conductive wires, but could be implemented as any of the claimed features).
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 tha