DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/24/2024. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 16-24, 27, & 28 are pending, and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 9, 13, 18, 20, & 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 1, line 5, the recitation of “a printed circuit board, PCB, supported by the sheet” should instead recite --a printed circuit board (“PCB”) supported by the sheet--.
b. In claim 9, line 3, the recitation of “a TPU substrate” should instead recite --a thermoplastic polyurethane (“TPU”) substrate--.
c. In claim 13, line 2, the recitation of “a TPU substrate” should instead recite --a thermoplastic polyurethane (“TPU”) substrate--.
d. In claim 18, line 2, the recitation of “is arranged either side of” should instead recite --is arranged on either side of--.
e. In claim 20, line 2, the recitation of “in pairs either side of” should instead recite --in pairs on either side of--.
f. In claim 22, line 3, the recitation of “each electrode’s respective stretchable contact” should instead recite --each capacitive electrode’s respective stretchable contact--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 19, 20, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the system comprises four capacitive electrodes” in lines 1-2. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “four capacitive electrodes” are provided in addition to the two capacitive electrodes recited in independent claim 1 (from which claim 19 depends), or whether the recited “four capacitive electrodes” include the two capacitive electrodes recited in independent claim 1. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
7. Claim 20 is rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 19) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
8. Claim 23 recites the limitation " the detected biosignals" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claims 1, 2, 16-20, & 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0303810 to Stone ("Stone") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0192881 to Oehler et al. ("Oehler") [made of record in Applicant’s 04/26/24 IDS].
12. Regarding claim 1, Stone teaches a system for capacitively capturing electrical biosignals from a biosignal source in a medical care screening or monitoring environment [e.g., Abstract; ¶’s [0021], [0047], [0049]], the system comprising:
a sheet [broadly, garment band (104) - ¶’s [0056], [0079], [0080]; FIG. 3];
two capacitive electrodes [first and second capacitive ECG electrodes (2a, 2b) of ECG sensor system (20) - ¶’s [0051], [0054], [0083]; FIG. 3] supported by the sheet [(104)] [¶[0083]; FIG. 3];
an [electronics module] [electronics module (22) - ¶’s [0050], [0070], [0073], [0088]], supported by the sheet [(104)] [see ¶[0089] (“In some embodiments, the electronics module 22 is incorporated into band 104”)];
two stretchable contacts [signal transmission conductors (6) - ¶’s [0084]-[0087]; note particularly ¶[0084] (“the band 104 further comprises integral signal transmission conductors 6. In a preferred embodiment, the signal transmission conductors 6 are disposed in a flexible configuration thereon”); & ¶[0087] (“the signal transmission conductors 6 comprise a thin linear member, e.g. thread or chord, which is wrapped with a conductive wire. Preferably, the linear member comprises a stretchable member, i.e. is at least partially constructed of a stretchable material, and the wire is spirally wrapped around the stretchable member”)] respectively arranged between each capacitive electrode [(2a, 2b)] and the [electronics module] [¶’s [0084]-[0088]; NOTE: Stone teaches that signal transmission conductors (6) [plural] connect the ECG sensor system (20), which comprises electrodes (2a, 2b) [plural] to the electronics module (22) (see ¶[0087]); as such, it is the Examiner’s position that each electrode (2a, 2b) has its own respective conductor (6) that connects it to the electronics module (22); such an interpretation is further consistent with, e.g., ¶[0110] which describes electrode strips as ECG electrodes, and ¶[0120] which describes electrode strips being in communication with an amplifier system (of an electronic module) via respective conductors (6) - see also FIG. 5A],
wherein each stretchable contact [(6)] is configured to stretch to permit relative movement between its respective capacitive electrode and the [electronics module] while maintaining electrical contact between the [electronics module] and its respective capacitive electrode [again note ¶’s [0084]-[0087] which describe the flexible configuration and stretchable nature of the conductors (6)].
ELECTRONICS MODULE AS A PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD (“PCB”)
While, as noted above, Stone teaches that the electronics module (22) is supported by the sheet [(104)], Stone does not explicitly teach that the electronics module (22) comprises a printed circuit board, and therefore fails to explicitly teach the following emphasized limitations:
a printed circuit board, PCB, supported by the sheet;
two stretchable contacts respectively arranged between each capacitive electrode and the PCB,
wherein each stretchable contact is configured to stretch to permit relative movement between its respective capacitive electrode and the PCB while maintaining electrical contact between the PCB and its respective capacitive electrode.
Oehler, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it was well known in the art to mount electronics associated with the processing of ECG signals from a capacitive textile electrode on a flexible printed circuit board [see ¶[0016] (“The amplifier electronics system integrated in the capacitive textile electrode may likewise be formed as a flexible amplifier electronics system, for example by using a flexible printed circuit board”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stone such that electronics module (22) comprise (or be disposed on) a flexible circuit board, since such a particular, known electronics mounting technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as clearly demonstrated by Oehler, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device of Stone, and the results [providing electronics module (22) as (or on) a flexible printed circuit board] would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Further, use of a flexible printed circuit board would allow for the electronics module (22) to bend/flex together with the sheet, capacitive electrodes, and stretchable contacts during use.
13. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone further teaches wherein the sheet [(104)] comprises at least one of a textile material [e.g., ¶[0080]] and a bed sheet.
14. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone does not teach:
wherein at least one of the capacitive electrodes comprises first and second layers of an electrically conductive textile material separated by a layer of electrically insulating textile material.
However, Oehler further teaches a capacitive textile electrode for the capacitive measurement of electrical signals, in particular of biosignals [¶[0001]], and teaches that the capacitive electrode has a multilayer structure which has at least two electrically conductive layers which are composed of a textile material, and has at least one insulation layer which is arranged between the at least two electrically conductive layers [e.g., Abstract].
Oehler additionally teaches that the insulating layer may comprise or consist of an insulating textile material [see ¶[0024] (“The insulating layers may in principle be produced from any desired insulating material. It is advantageous to produce the insulating layers from flexible material, so that an altogether flexible capacitive textile electrode is created. According to an advantageous development of the invention, one or more or all of the insulating layers comprise(s) or consist(s) of an insulating textile material.”)]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that at least one of the capacitive electrodes [(2a, 2b)] comprises first and second layers of an electrically conductive textile material separated by a layer of electrically insulating textile material, as taught by Oehler, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known capacitive electrode for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
15. Regarding claim 17, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Oehler further teaches wherein a cutaway is provided on the at least one of the capacitive electrodes, the cutaway comprising a region where the first layer of the electrically conductive textile material and the electrically insulating textile material have been removed, wherein the respective stretchable contact is electrically connected to the second layer of the electrically conductive textile material via the cutaway [e.g., ¶[0040]; FIG. 1].
16. Regarding claim 18, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the two capacitive electrodes is arranged either side of a longitudinal axis of the sheet.
However, given Stone’s teaching that the use/application of the device may vary (e.g., employment of capacitive electrodes in a wearable garment, bed, car seat) [¶[0048]], and that the body region intended to be covered may also vary [¶[0078]], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that the layout/arrangement of capacitive electrodes be tailored/customized based on a specific use/application and/or desired clinical objectives. In further support of this conclusion of obviousness, it is noted that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Office personnel may… take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In the instant case, for the reasons set forth above concerning the different uses/applications and placements contemplated by Stone, selection of the layout of capacitive electrodes such as, e.g., wherein each of the two capacitive electrodes is arranged either side of a longitudinal axis of the sheet, would have been a choice well within the ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the straightforward teachings and objectives of Stone.
17. Regarding claims 19 & 20, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone further teaches that the ECG sensor system (20) can comprise any number of ECG electrodes and reference electrodes [¶[0067]], but does not explicitly teach:
[claim 19] wherein the system comprises four capacitive electrodes; nor
[claim 20] wherein the four capacitive electrodes are arranged in pairs either side of a longitudinal axis of the sheet.
However, given Stone’s express teachings that any number of electrodes may be used [¶[0067]], that the use/application may vary (e.g., employment of capacitive electrodes in a wearable garment, bed, car seat) [¶[0048]], and that the body region intended to be covered may also vary [¶[0078]], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that the particular number and layout/arrangement of capacitive electrodes be tailored/customized based on a specific use/application and/or desired clinical objectives. In further support of this conclusion of obviousness, it is noted that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Office personnel may… take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In the instant case, for the reasons set forth above concerning the different uses/applications and placements contemplated by Stone, selection of the number/layout of capacitive electrodes such as, e.g., wherein the system comprises four capacitive electrodes arranged in pairs either side of a longitudinal axis of the sheet, would have been a choice well within the ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the straightforward teachings and objectives of Stone.
18. Regarding claim 22, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone (as modified) further teaches wherein the system further comprises an electronic signal processing system connected to each capacitive electrode via the PCB and each electrode's respective stretchable contact, wherein the electronic signal processing system is configured to process biosignals detected by the capacitive electrodes [e.g., ¶’s [0070], [0071], [0073], [0091], [0096],[0097]].
19. Regarding claim 23, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone further teaches wherein the detected biosignals comprise ECG signals [e.g., Abstract; ¶’s [0001], [0021], [0048]].
20. Regarding claim 24, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Stone (as modified) further teaches a temperature sensor supported by the sheet and in electrical contact with the PCB [e.g., ¶’s [0074], [0101]].
21. Claims 4, 5, 7-9, 12, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone and Oehler, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0124910 to Hsu ("Hsu").
22. Regarding claims 4 & 5, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone and Oehler does not, however, teach:
[claim 4] wherein at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate; nor
[claim 5] wherein the at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a conductive trace supported by the thermoplastic polyurethane substrate.
Hsu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a stretchable sensing structure, which is applied to a wearable smart fabric for sensing different physiological signals of a human body in different states [e.g., ¶[0037]].
Hsu further teaches the use of stretchable contacts [signal transmission lines (20)] which comprise a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate [substrate layer (21)] [see ¶[0053] (“a material of the second stretchable substrate layer 21 may be thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), rubber, etc., which stretches when subjected to an external force and returns to the original state after the external force is removed”); FIG. 5]; and a conductive trace [silver paste (22)] supported by the thermoplastic polyurethane substrate [(21)] [see ¶’s [0052]-[0054]; FIGS. 5-6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, and wherein the at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a conductive trace supported by the thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, as taught by Hsu, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known stretchable contact structure for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
23. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stone, Oehler, and Hsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hsu further teaches wherein the conductive trace comprises a serpentine portion [clearly shown in FIG. 6].
24. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone and Oehler does not, however, explicitly teach:
wherein at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a first contact region coupled to its respective capacitive electrode.
Hsu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a stretchable sensing structure, which is applied to a wearable smart fabric for sensing different physiological signals of a human body in different states [e.g., ¶[0037]].
Hsu further teaches the use of stretchable contacts [signal transmission lines (20)] that connect to electrodes via connecting contacts (222) [broadly, a “contact region”] [¶[0055]; FIG. 6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a first contact region coupled to its respective capacitive electrode, since such a particular, known connection configuration was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as clearly demonstrated by Hsu, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device of Stone/Oehler, and the results [connecting a stretchable contact to its respective electrode] would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
25. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stone, Oehler, and Hsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hsu further teaches that the stretchable contacts [signal transmission lines (20)] comprise a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate [substrate layer (21)] [see ¶[0053] (“a material of the second stretchable substrate layer 21 may be thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), rubber, etc., which stretches when subjected to an external force and returns to the original state after the external force is removed”); FIG. 5].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that stretchable contacts comprise a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, as taught by Hsu, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known stretchable contact structure for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Finally, the recitation of “wherein the coupling between the first contact region and the respective capacitive electrode comprises a bond created by melting a TPU substrate” is regarded as a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
26. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone and Oehler does not, however, explicitly teach:
wherein at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a second contact region coupled to the PCB.
Hsu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a stretchable sensing structure, which is applied to a wearable smart fabric for sensing different physiological signals of a human body in different states [e.g., ¶[0037]].
Hsu further teaches the use of stretchable contacts [signal transmission lines (20)] that connect to components [e.g., electrodes] via connecting contacts (222) [broadly, a contact region] [¶[0055]; FIG. 6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that at least one of the stretchable contacts comprises a second contact region coupled to the PCB, since such a particular, known connection configuration was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as clearly demonstrated by Hsu, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device of Stone/Oehler, and the results [connecting a stretchable contact to a PCB] would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
27. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stone, Oehler, & Hsu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Hsu further teaches that the stretchable contacts [signal transmission lines (20)] comprise a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate [substrate layer (21)] [see ¶[0053] (“a material of the second stretchable substrate layer 21 may be thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), rubber, etc., which stretches when subjected to an external force and returns to the original state after the external force is removed”); FIG. 5].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that stretchable contacts comprise a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, as taught by Hsu, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known stretchable contact structure for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Finally, the recitation of “wherein the coupling between the second contact region and the PCB comprises a bond created by melting a TPU substrate” is regarded as a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
28. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone and Oehler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0084643 to Baxi et al. ("Baxi").
29. Regarding claim 21, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone and Oehler does not, however, teach:
wherein the PCB comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate.
Baxi, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to electrical interconnections in wearable electronic devices [¶[0001], and is concerned with improving the flexibility of wearable electronic devices [¶[0002]]. More particularly, Baxi teaches that it was known in the art to provide a stretchable PCB comprising, e.g., TPU [see ¶[0020] (“Assembly 400 includes a stretchable PCB 404, where stretchable PCB 404 includes conductive traces 405 and conductive pads 406 fabricated on a flexible or stretchable substrate, such as polyamide polyimide, elastomer material, Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU), fabric, silicone, rubber, or other flexible or stretchable substrate”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that the PCB comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, since selection of a known, art-recognized flexible and stretchable substrate material would provide the benefit/advantage of allowing for the PCB to bend/flex/stretch together with the sheet, capacitive electrodes, and stretchable contacts during use. Still further, such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known PCB material for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
30. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone and Oehler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0317057 to Li et al. ("Li").
31. Regarding claim 27, the combination of Stone and Oehler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone and Oehler does not, however, teach:
wherein the PCB and two stretchable contacts comprise a single substrate.
Li, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it was known to form stretchable contacts [flexible ribbons] and circuit modules from a single continuous sheet of material [see, e.g., ¶[0043] (“The support substrates in the circuit modules 430-432 can be contiguous to support the circuit modules 430-432 and the conductive lines in the flexible ribbons 440. In manufacturing, the support substrates in the circuit modules 430-432 can be formed in a single manufacturing step from a continuous sheet of material. The openings between the circuit modules 430-432 and the flexible ribbons 440 can be formed cutting a continuous sheet by techniques such as laser cutting and/or die cutting. It should be noted that the presently disclosed “single substrate” structure for the circuit layer is drastically different from conventional approaches, where different rigid boards/modules are connected with flexible ribbons via connectors. In our proposed approach, the modules and ribbons are made on one single continuous substrate. Openings or voids are created on the substrate to provide high effective elasticity and breathability”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that the PCB and two stretchable contacts comprise a single substrate, since such a modification would simply the manufacturing process by allowing the PCB and stretchable contacts to be made on a single continuous substrate thereby eliminating the need to provide subsequent connections with connectors. Still further, such a particular, known fabrication technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as clearly demonstrated by Li, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device of Stone/Oleher, and the results [providing a PCB and stretchable contacts on a single substrate] would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
32. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone, Oehler, & Li, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Baxi.
33. Regarding claim 28, the combination of Stone, Oehler, & Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The combination of Stone, Oehler, & Li does not, however, teach:
wherein the single substrate comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate.
Baxi, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to electrical interconnections in wearable electronic devices [¶[0001], and is concerned with improving the flexibility of wearable electronic devices [¶[0002]]. More particularly, Baxi teaches that it was known in the art to provide a stretchable PCB comprising, e.g., TPU [see ¶[0020] (“Assembly 400 includes a stretchable PCB 404, where stretchable PCB 404 includes conductive traces 405 and conductive pads 406 fabricated on a flexible or stretchable substrate, such as polyamide polyimide, elastomer material, Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU), fabric, silicone, rubber, or other flexible or stretchable substrate”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Stone and Oehler such that the single substrate comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane substrate, since selection of a known, art-recognized flexible and stretchable substrate material would provide the benefit/advantage of allowing for the PCB/contacts to bend/flex/stretch together with the sheet and capacitive electrodes during use. Still further, such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known substrate material for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. 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.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794