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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I which corresponds to pending claims 1-15 and 29-32 in the reply filed on 4/10/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Meeker”, “Development of Self-Folding Origami Sensors Through the Use of Resistance, Capacitance, and Inductance” [archived to MIT Libraries 2014].
Regarding claim 1, Meeker discloses a sensor for measuring an electrical signal, comprising:
a compressible body portion defining a longitudinal axis [Chapter 2.3.1, Figures 2.4–2.5: spring-like origami structure defining a vertical/longitudinal axis; Chapter 3.4, Figure 3.4c: capacitive sensor with longitudinal compression axis] and comprising a foldable wall extending from a first end of the body portion to a second end of the body portion [Chapter 2.3.1, Figure 2.4: flat structure folding into spring with walls extending between ends; Chapter 3.4, Figures 3.3–3.4: crease pattern showing walls composed of connected tiles extending from top end to bottom end of the structure],
wherein: the body portion is movable from a decompressed state to a compressed state by moving the first end along the longitudinal axis relative to the second end [Chapter 2.3.1, Figures 2.5a–2.5b: “When the origami was compressed several tiles (previously unconnected by bridges or otherwise) came into direct contact”; Chapter 3.4.2, Figure 3.5: “Capacitance vs. Axial Length” demonstrating compression from ~75mm to ~15mm axial length]; and
the wall comprises fold lines formed therein such that, during movement of the body portion from the decompressed state to the compressed state, the wall is folded along the fold lines [Chapter 3.4, Figure 3.3: “Red lines indicate mountain folds (where conductive bridges will be located)”; Chapter 1.2: “By implementing varying gap sizes along desired fold lines in the rigid layers, Miyashita succeeded controlling fold direction and angle”; Chapter 2.3.1, Figure 2.4: crease pattern with predetermined mountain and valley fold lines that dictate folding during compression]; and
an electrode portion connected to the body portion and comprising an electrode for measuring the electrical signal [Chapter 3.4, Figure 3.4c: “measure C total” between connection points on the conductive origami structure; the connected rows of conductive metallized polyester film (MPF) tiles constitute electrode portions that measure capacitance—an electrical signal; Figure 3.4a: “front face” and “back face” connection points that form the electrode portions for capacitive measurement; Chapter 2.2.1: conductive polyester material with measured sheet resistance serving as electrode material].
Regarding claim 7, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the electrode comprises one or more serpentine conductive elements [Chapter 2.2.2, Figure 2.3: “zigzag” bridge pattern forming a serpentine conductive path between measurement points; Chapter 2.3.2, Figure 2.6: “two parallel, zig-zag paths (via bridges) which current might take to connect the left and right square tabs”—these zig-zag/serpentine paths constitute serpentine conductive elements of the electrode].
Regarding claim 8, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 7, wherein the one or more serpentine conductive elements extend in a first direction, and wherein the electrode further comprises one or more serpentine conductive elements extending in a second direction [Chapter 2.3.2, Figure 2.6: the crease pattern shows two parallel zig-zag paths—one extending toward the top of the figure and one extending toward the bottom, constituting serpentine elements extending in different directions; additionally, the zigzag bridges provide conductive paths in both longitudinal and lateral directions of the structure].
Regarding claim 9, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 8, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction [Figure 2.6: the zig-zag conductive paths include segments running along the longitudinal axis and segments running perpendicular thereto along the lateral/transverse axis to connect adjacent tiles; Figure 3.3: mountain fold bridges connect tiles in both horizontal and vertical directions, with the horizontal conduction paths being perpendicular to vertical fold directions].
Regarding claim 10, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, further comprising one or more electrical conductors connected to the electrode [Figure 2.5a: “connected to the circuit via the green wires” -- wires connect to the conductive tiles/electrodes; Figure 3.4c: measurement points showing electrical connections to the electrode portions for capacitance measurement; the external wires constitute “electrical conductors connected to the electrode”].
Regarding claim 13, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, wherein the fold lines of the body portion define at least one polygonal surface portion of the wall of the body portion [Figure 3.3: fold lines (red mountain folds and blue valley folds) define triangular and rectangular/square polygonal tiles that constitute polygonal surface portions of the wall; Figure 2.3: tiles shown as square polygonal surfaces defined by bridges/fold lines].
Regarding claim 14, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 13, wherein the at least one polygonal surface portion comprises interconnected polygonal surface portions of the wall of the body portion, and wherein the interconnected polygonal surface portions comprise an outer surface of the wall of the body portion [Figures 3.3–3.4: tiles are interconnected via mountain fold bridges forming a continuous outer surface; Figure 2.4: “the flat structure consists of two metallic polyester film sides” -- the outer MPF tiles are interconnected polygonal surface portions forming the outer surface of the wall; the folded origami structure’s exterior face is composed of these interconnected polygonal tiles].
Regarding claim 15, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 13, wherein the at least one polygonal surface portion comprises at least one planar polygonal surface portion [Figure 2.3: tiles are flat/planar squares; Figure 3.3: triangular and rectangular tiles are planar surfaces].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-6, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeker in view of “Breedon”, US Patent 10111995.
Regarding claim 2, Meeker did not disclose explicitly using auxetic material.
Breedon teaches analogous compressible/deformable structures incorporating electrical elements that change configuration along a longitudinal axis wherein a foldable/compressible wall comprises an auxetic material [col.4, ll.49-53: “The tubular elastic support structure may comprise an auxetic structure configured such that a ratio between expansion in the circumferential direction and contraction in the axial direction of the tubular elastic support structure when unconstrained is zero or negative”; col.8, l.21-28: “The term ‘auxetic’ describes a material with an effective negative Poisson ratio”; FIG. 5; col.13, ll.8-39: “a system held in a state of ‘tensegrity’—i.e. tensional integrity or floating compression”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate auxetic fold pattern into the compressible origami structure of Meeker to produce controlled radial and axial dimensional changes during compression. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the modification to enhance the base device of Meeker by improving its structural stability under compression as Breedon explicitly teaches that auxetic structures provide benefits including preventing out-of-plane buckling [col.9, ll.23-27] and acting as a “rip-stop” to prevent tear propagation [col.14, ll.50-57], both of which would improve the durability and reliability of Meeker’s compressible sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, including an electrode portion connected to the body portion as discussed above. Meeker further discloses foldable walls with fold lines in the electrode portion [Figure 3.3: crease pattern with mountain/valley folds forming the conductive tile portions; Figure 3.4c: folded structure showing electrode connection points on a foldable structure].
However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode portion is movable from an unexpanded state to an expanded state by moving the first end of the electrode portion along the longitudinal axis relative to the second end of the electrode portion, and the wall of the electrode portion comprises fold lines such that movement causes the electrode portion to expand in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis.
Breedon discloses a structure movable from an unexpanded state to an expanded state where axial compression causes radial expansion [col.4, ll.49-53: “The tubular elastic support structure may comprise an auxetic structure configured such that a ratio between expansion in the circumferential direction and contraction in the axial direction of the tubular elastic support structure when unconstrained is zero or negative” -- teaching that axial contraction/compression corresponds with circumferential/radial expansion; col.8, ll.21-28: “An auxetic material in the form of a tubular structure may therefore expand in a longitudinal direction and either remain unchanged in diameter or increase in diameter”; col.12, ll.49-56: biaxial braid showing “reduction in diameter of around 1:1 of a longitudinal extension”]. Breedon further discloses that such structures incorporate electrodes [col.8, ll.52+: compliant electrodes capable of isotropic expansion; col.10, ll.21-31: electrical connections 17a, 17b are provided for applying an electrical signal via terminals 18a, 18b to the actuator structure 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressible origami structure of Meeker with the teachings of Breedon. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to configure the electrode portion with fold lines that cause radial expansion upon axial compression as taught by Breedon’s auxetic structures, in order to enhance the base device of Meeker by enabling the sensor’s electrodes to radially expand and conform to a target surface during compression, thereby improving electrode-to-surface contact quality and measurement reliability.
Regarding claim 4, Breedon discloses wherein the fold lines of the electrode portion are arranged such that, during movement of the electrode portion from the unexpanded state to the expanded state, a distance separating the first end of the electrode portion from the second end of the electrode portion decreases in a direction defined by the longitudinal axis [col.4, ll.49-53: the auxetic structure has a relationship where “contraction in the axial direction” occurs simultaneously with “expansion in the circumferential direction” -- i.e., the axial distance decreases during radial expansion; col.12, ll.41-56: “a reduction in diameter of around 1:1 of a longitudinal extension” describes the inverse relationship where length changes correspond to diameter changes, and for auxetic behavior, axial shortening produces radial expansion].
Regarding claim 5, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 3, wherein the fold lines of the electrode portion define multiple polygonal surface portions of the wall of the electrode portion, the multiple polygonal surface portions comprising a sequence of alternating rectangular and triangular surface portions [Figure 3.3: crease pattern showing triangular tiles alternating with rectangular/square tiles connected by mountain fold bridges; Figure 3.4a: the folded capacitive sensor shows alternating triangular center tiles and rectangular end tiles defining the wall surface; “Triangular tiles connected by these mountain folds form 8 horizontal rows of conduction”].
Regarding claim 6, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, including electrode portions with inner and outer surfaces [Figure 3.4a: “front face” and “back face” of the capacitive sensor structure]. However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode is comprised on the inner surface facing toward the longitudinal axis.
Breedon discloses an electrode on an inner surface facing toward the longitudinal axis [col.9, l.66 to col.10, l.31: electrical connections 17a, 17b are provided for applying an electrical signal via terminals 18a, 18b to the actuator structure 13 that surrounds the support structure 12 along the central longitudinal axis/fluid flow path 16 -- with electrodes arranged on surfaces facing inward toward the inner tubular structure and longitudinal axis].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressible origami structure of Meeker with the teachings of Breedon, in order to enhance the base device of Meeker by orienting the electrode inward to make contact with a measurement target positioned within the tubular sensor structure, thereby optimizing signal acquisition geometry.
Regarding claim 29, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 1, as set forth above. Meeker teaches fabrication using laser cutting and layered assembly [Figure 2.4: laser-cut MPF tiles]. However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose wherein the wall of the body portion is formed by three-dimensional printing.
Breedon discloses forming structural walls by three-dimensional printing [col.5, ll.59-61: “The elastic support structure may be applied by a three dimensional printing process, for example via extrusion or paste deposition”; col.13, ll.8-39: “it is proposed instead to use a system whereby a flexible but high durometer (hardness) elastomer is applied, for example by extrusion, directly onto the stretched membrane balloons, using direct write assembly 3D printing techniques”; col.11, ll.4-10: step (D): “a tubular elastic support structure 40 is deposited over the layer… from a computer-controlled dispensing nozzle”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabrication teachings of Meeker with the teachings of Breedon to form the foldable wall by three-dimensional printing -- enabling precise, repeatable fabrication of complex fold-line geometries without the multiple manual steps currently required in Meeker’s fabrication process [Meeker, Section 5.2: “Reducing the number of manual steps in the fabrication process would move the self-folding origami closer to being truly printable”].
Regarding claim 30, Meeker discloses a sensor according to claim 1 (as set forth above). Meeker further discloses measurement equipment receiving electrical readings from the electrode [Chapter 3.4.2, Figure 3.5: “capacitance was measured between the points” using “a benchtop LCR meter”]. However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose a system for measuring an electrical signal generated by a patient comprising one or more processors communicative with the sensor and configured to receive electrical conductivity readings from the electrode.
Breedon discloses a system for measuring an electrical signal generated by a patient, comprising one or more processors communicative with a sensor and configured to receive electrical readings [col.14, ll.9-26: electronic control circuitry… will consist primarily of an implanted electrocardiogram (ECG) to monitor the heartbeat via a high-speed microcontroller; cardiac assist device 60 with electronic control circuitry 61 and electrocardiogram sensor 63; “For closed-loop control the device may incorporate a sensor so that the position of the actuator is known at any one time… using a method known as ‘self-sensing capability’, which measures the impedance of the active multi-layer actuator”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Breedon to provide one or more processors configured to receive electrical conductivity readings from the electrode for measuring signals generated by a patient. This would enhance the base device of Meeker by enabling automated, real-time processing of the electrical signals measured by the foldable sensor for medical monitoring purposes -- a well-established application of bioelectrical sensors.
Regarding claim 31, Meeker in view of Breedon discloses the system of claim 30, including one or more processors and a sensor with conductive elements as discussed above. Meeker further discloses measuring electrical resistance of conductive elements provided on the sensor [Chapter 2: extensive study of resistance measurement of conductive tiles and bridges; Chapter 2.2.1: van der Pauw method for measuring sheet resistance; Chapter 2.3.2: stretchable resistor whose resistance changes with physical deformation]. Particularly, Meeker teaches that the resistance of a conductive element on a foldable structure changes predictably with structural deformation – including rotational deformation – because rotation changes the effective length-to-width ratio and bridge geometry of the conductive path [Meeker, Chapter 2.2, Figure 2.2: “Resistance vs. length-to-width ratio”].
Accordingly, since Breedon further discloses self-sensing capability which measures the impedance of the active multi-layer actuator for determining position [col.14, ll.16-26], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Meeker in view of Breedon to configure the processor to correlate measured resistance with rotational position – thus, enhancing the system by providing positional feedback for the sensor, a technique Breedon identifies as desirable for closed-loop control [col.14, ll.9-26].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeker in view of “Elliot”, US Publication 20190003024.
Regarding claim 11, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 10, including one or more electrical conductors connected to the electrode [Figures 2.5a–2.5b: green wires connected to conductive tiles]. However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more electrical conductors pass through an interior of the body portion.
Elliot teaches similar compressible/deformable structures with integrated electrical conductors that must maintain electrical connectivity during structural deformation – with one or more electrical conductors passing through an interior of a body portion [0065: “The voids 306 may advantageously provide one or more routes for conductors 114/115 to traverse to opposing surfaces of the bendable actuators 302 to improve the density of individual conductors 114/115”; FIGS. 6A–6B: conductors routed through the interior void spaces of the tubular actuator structure; 0069, FIGS. 8A–8C: controller 104 embedded within the ring with leads traversing interior surfaces].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the routing of electrical conductors through the interior of the body portion as taught by Elliot, to enhance the base device of Meeker by protecting the conductors from external damage during handling and compression, and by improving the density of available conductor routes [Elliot, 0065].
Regarding claim 12, Meeker discloses the sensor of claim 10, including a body portion [Figures 3.4a–c: origami body with outer and inner surfaces]. However, Meeker does not explicitly disclose wherein the body portion comprises an outer surface and an opposing inner surface facing toward the longitudinal axis, and the one or more electrical conductors are in contact with the outer surface of the body portion.
Elliot discloses a body portion comprising an outer surface and an opposing inner surface facing toward a longitudinal axis, with electrical conductors in contact with the outer surface of the body portion [0042: the individual power conductors 114a-114f are interfaced on a first surface 120 of the body 112 (defining a first portion of the body 112) and the ground conductor 115 is interfaced with a second surface 122 of the body 112 (defining a second portion of the body 112); 0047: parallel array of conductors on first surface; FIGS. 6A–6B: conductors on outer surfaces of tubular body].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place electrical conductors in contact with the outer surface of the body portion as taught by Elliot to enhance the base device of Meeker by providing a clear conductor routing path that does not interfere with the interior electrode/sensing function of the sensor, while taking advantage of the available outer surface area for conductor tracing.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meeker and Breedon in view of “Cho”, US Patent 8795185.
Regarding claim 32, Meeker in view of Breedon discloses the system of claim 30, as set forth above. Breedon further discloses one or more processors configured to determine one or more electrocardiogram (ECG) signals from electrical conductivity readings [col.14, ll.9-26: “implanted electrocardiogram (ECG) to monitor the heartbeat via a high-speed microcontroller”—the ECG sensor obtains electrical conductivity readings and the microcontroller processes them to determine ECG signals; FIG. 6: ECG sensor 63 communicating with control circuitry 61].
However, Meeker in view of Breedon does not explicitly disclose a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor, obtaining PPG signals, and determining blood pressure based on PPG signals and ECG signals.
Cho discloses a health monitoring device that combines PPG sensors with ECG sensors and determine blood pressure based on pulse transit time (PTT) calculated from the time difference between ECG-wave peaks and corresponding PPG pulse arrivals [FIG.3; col.4, ll.6-18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Meeker in view of Breedon to include a PPG sensor and configure the processors to determine blood pressure based on PPG and ECG signals as taught by Cho. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the modification to provide continuous, non-invasive blood pressure monitoring without the inconvenience of traditional methods [e.g., cuff: Cho, col.1, ll.51-63].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Nam”, US Publication 20210095369, discloses fabricating a sensor as a thin sheet with conductive material, then cut the sheet into a kirigami-style pattern with perforated regions. Those perforated regions act like flexible bridges that absorb most of the mechanical deformation. The sensor can be used as a photodetector [PPG], temperature sensor, pressure sensor, biological analyte sensor, or field-effect transistor. The disclosure emphasizes wearable uses, including skin-mounted sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tse Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-3672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights