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 . Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US Publication 2016/0120434 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, park discloses a biological sensor, comprising: a sensor body configured to obtain biological information (120, best seen in Figure 2A); a cover member having a housing space and an opening of the housing space (140), the sensor body being housed in the housing space (Figures 1A-B); a first sheet member provided to face the opening in the cover member (300); and a second sheet member provided to face the cover member with the first sheet member being between the second sheet and the cover member (330), wherein at least a part of an outer periphery of the first sheet member projects with respect to outer peripheries of the cover member and the second sheet member (300 extends beyond 140 in light of Figures 3A-E, see also [0117] which details that 300 can be larger than 330).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses that the cover member and the first sheet member have a thin and long shape (thin is a relative term and long is read as one side is longer than the other in which both elements 140 and 300 are long), and either or both of longitudinal ends of the outer periphery of the first sheet member project with respect to the outer periphery of the cover member (300is longer and projects past the periphery of 140, see Figure 1B and 3A for positioning).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 9-11, Park discloses that the moisture permeability and stretchability of the first sheet member is higher than moisture permeability of the cover member ([0113][0126] which details that the cover layer 140 is made of water resistant, rigid plastic to protect the inner electronics while the sheet members are made of polyurethane and designed to be stretchable and breathable).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Park discloses that the outer periphery of the first sheet member projects with respect to the outer periphery of the second sheet member (at element 113, which is an outer rim of first sheet 300, see also [0117] detailing it should have a larger footprint than second sheet 330).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Park discloses that the outer periphery, in a lateral direction, of the first sheet member having the thin and long shape projects with respect to the outer periphery of the cover member in the lateral direction (Figures 1A-B, 3A-B which shows the sheet layers extending longitudinally outward from the cover member), and the outer periphery of the second sheet member in the lateral direction is positioned between the outer periphery of the cover member and the outer periphery of the first sheet member ([0117] and Figure 3B which shows the layers in a stacked arrangement where in the lateral direction the second sheet is shorter in length than the first sheet but clearly longer than the cover member).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Wu WO Publication 2021/136246 (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Park is silent on the permeability between the sheets, though mentions they can be either the same or different materials as desired. Wu teaches a similar ECG monitoring patch that details that the moisture permeability of the first sheet member is higher than moisture permeability of the second sheet member claim 7). Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the relative permeability of the sheets as taught by Wu with the sheets of Park as predictable results would have ensued (affording a desired amount of air and moisture/sweat to pass through the desired sheets/layers). Further, it should be noted that given the adhesive 340 which is coated onto 340 it can reasonably be considered a part of the layer 330 which would change the permeability of that layer directly, and if the first and second sheets are made of the same layer (which is a detailed option), it would provide for a less permeable second sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights