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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-7, 11, 15-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann [The MAIN Shirt: A Textile-Integrated Magnetic Induction Sensor Array, Sensors 2014, 14, 1039-1056; doi:10.3390/s140101039] in view of Ausanio [Giant magnetic induction in magneto-elastic resonators and its application for magnetic field sensors, Sensors and Actuators A 153 (2009) 162–165].
As per claim 1, Teichmann teaches an apparatus comprising:
a textile (Teichmann Fig 2, abstract) configured
a magnetic induction coupled to the textile to perform magnetic to electrical conversion (Teichmann Fig 2c, section 2.2 “the sensor head (coil) of each sensor is realized by high frequency litz wire …The coil is part of a Colpitts oscillator. The frequency change due to a variation in coil impedance can be measured by a frequency counter realized by using the counter input of a microcontroller” measuring changes in )
Teichmann does not expressly recite a giant magnetoelastic effect and to implement a soft magnetoelastic generator (MEG).
Ausanio, in a related field of magnetic induction and sensing teaches, configured with a giant magnetoelastic effect (Ausanio introduction GMI effect for sensing) and to implement a soft magnetoelastic generator (MEG) (Ausanio introduction “amorphous ribbons or wires of soft ferromagnetic alloys”).
Ausanio thus discloses GMI effect for sensing of strains displacements, deformations, and oscillations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Teichmann, by integrating soft amorphous materials as in Ausanio, so as to improve miniaturization and sensitivity (Ausanio conclusion).
As per 2, Teichmann in view of Ausanio further teaches wherein the MEG comprises a textile MEG (Combination of Ausanio with the textile sensor comprise a textile MEG).
As per claims 6, 15, Teichmann in view of Ausanio does not expressly teach wherein the textile MEG has an intrinsic waterproof property, an ultralow internal impedance around ~20 Ω, and a high short-circuit current density of 1.37 mA/cm2, wherein the textile has a Young's modulus around 630 kPa or less. However, as per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support a prima facie obviousness. In the instant case, the claims are directed to selection of materials that meet different properties used as a textile material. It would have been obvious to a person to select materials that meet different design criteria for textile sensors.
As per claim 7, Teichmann in view of Ausanio wherein the textile MEG is configured as a self- powered textile respiration sensor (Teichmann abstract “MAIN (magnetic induction) Shirt) does not need electrodes or any other skin contact. It is wearable, unobtrusive and can easily be integrated into an individual’s daily routine.”. Section 2.2 “The whole system is battery-driven with a supply voltage of 3.7V”).
As per claim 20, Teichmann in view of Ausanio teaches wherein the magnetic induction comprises a metal coil that is patterned on the textile (Teichmann Fig 2).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann in view of Ausanio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee [Characterization of a magneto-active membrane actuator comprising hard magnetic particles with varying crosslinking degrees, Materials and Design 195 (2020) 108921].
As per claim 11, Teichmann in view of Ausanio does not expressly teach wherein the textile soft system is comprised of platinum-catalyzed silicone polymer matrix and neodymium-iron-boron nanomagnets magnets.
Lee, in a similar field of magneto-active materials teaches, platinum-catalyzed silicone polymer matrix and neodymium-iron-boron nanomagnets magnets (Lee section 2.1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Teichmann in view of Ausanio, by integrating materials as in Lee. The motivation would be to provide materials that responded quickly to the magnetic field and maintained their consistencies, even after repeated exposure (Lee page 9 RHS).
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann in view of Ausanio as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ding [Magnetic/conductive composite fibre: A multifunctional strain sensor with magnetically driven property, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing Volume 100, September 2017].
As per claims 16, 17, Teichmann in view of Ausanio does not expressly teach wherein the textile comprises magnetic microfibers, wherein the textile further comprises conductive yarns woven with the magnetic microfibers.
Ding, in a related field of strain sensor teaches the textile comprises magnetic microfibers, wherein the textile further comprises conductive yarns woven with the magnetic microfibers (Ding section 2.1, 2.2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Teichmann in view of Ausanio, by integrating material as in Ding, so as to use a material that that the possesses high potential to implement intelligent soft sensors and actuators (Ding abstract).
Claims 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teichmann in view of Ausanio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertuleit [Silver Coated Polyamide: A Conductive Fabric, Journal of Industrial Textiles, 1991].
As per claims 18-19, Teichmann in view of Ausanio does not expressly teach
wherein the textile comprises conductive yarns, wherein the conductive yarns comprise silver-coated nylon fibers.
Bertuleit, in field of fibers and yarns teaches textile comprises conductive yarns, wherein the conductive yarns comprise silver-coated nylon fibers (Bertuleit page 213 “standard quality of silver coated fabric, i.e., a 1.50 m wide nylon parachute fabric, with a rip-stop weave”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Teichmann in view of Ausanio, so as to be used as garments / workwear in antistatic applications (Bertuleit page212).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights