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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 212 183.7, filed on 10/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 04/24/2024 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…wherein the plurality of sensors is printed onto the elastic carrier by means of screen printing” in claim 10.
“…wherein the plurality of sensors is printed onto the elastic carrier in several layers by means of screen printing” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140070957 A1 – hereinafter Longinotti).
Re. claim 1, Longinotti teaches a device for the measurement of vital parameters, wherein the device is suitable for wearing on the skin, and wherein the device comprises:
an elastic carrier (figure 1A, woven conductive material 6), and
a plurality of sensors, wherein the sensors are geometrically expanded and identical in terms of their shape, wherein the plurality of sensors is applied to the elastic carrier (figure 1A, sensors 3A on the conductive material 6).
Re. claim 2, Longinotti further teaches wherein the elastic carrier comprises a textile material (paragraph 0215 – “An intelligent wear system according to the disclosure may include providing, developing and/or creating software applications, mobile device applications, and hardware applications; providing, developing and/or creating soft-goods (such as a textile, a fabric, an apparel merchandise)”).
Re. claim 3, Longinotti further teaches the device also comprises a further spatially concentrated sensor (figure 1A includes sensors spatially concentrated away from the other cluster of sensors).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 6, Longinotti further teaches the plurality of sensors is set up to record a vital parameter (paragraph 0012 – “As used herein a "body sensor" generally determines information about the user without requiring the users conscious input. A body sensor may detect physiological status, including vital signs (pulse/heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, galvanic skin response (e.g., sweat), etc.)”).
Re. claim 10, Longinotti further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors is printed onto the elastic carrier by means of screen printing (paragraph 0210 – “Within a power and data distribution system, an intelligent wear system may utilize a "power trace". Such a power trace may act as a connection point(s) for and between intelligent wear sensors…A power trace may comprise one or more than one component known to one of skill in the art or hereafter devised such as 1) an electrically conductively media (electrically conductive ink), an additive, or a material embedded in, on, or around a textile fibers within an intelligent apparel, a fiber optic such as via one or more of a core, dye, nano configuration, resin, spray, thread, or via such other manufacturing and/or deposition application such as embossing, heat transfer, pressing, screen printing…”).
Re. claim 11, Longinotti further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors is printed onto the elastic carrier in several layers by means of screen printing (paragraph 0192 – “…an intelligent garment may have a single garment with a double layer (or may have more than two layers) and may allow for a differentiated collection of intelligent garments (such as, a buttoned-up shirt, a coat, gloves, a hoodies, pants, a polo shirt, shoes, shorts, a vest, etc.) each with an internal (compression) support layer. An external layer may be configured to conform to a user's body or may be configured to not conform to a user's body. Each layer may include a specific category of elements such as sensors…”; screen printing sensors detailed in paragraph 0210; paragraph 0272 – “An interactive sensor may comprise a capacitive touch point. Such a capacitive touch points may be created in any way. FIG. 12A shows a direct capacitive touch point and FIG. 12B shows a capacitive touch point that may work by proximity (e.g. a signal that may be travel through an outer garment such as by a finger coming close to the touch point). A capacitive touch point may be created, for example, by printing three layers of material…”).
Re. claim 14, Longinotti further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors is printed onto the elastic carrier (figure 1A shows a plurality of sensors 3A on the elastic carrier; paragraph 0210 – “Within a power and data distribution system, an intelligent wear system may utilize a "power trace". Such a power trace may act as a connection point(s) for and between intelligent wear sensors…A power trace may comprise one or more than one component known to one of skill in the art or hereafter devised such as 1) an electrically conductively media (electrically conductive ink), an additive, or a material embedded in, on, or around a textile fibers within an intelligent apparel, a fiber optic such as via one or more of a core, dye, nano configuration, resin, spray, thread, or via such other manufacturing and/or deposition application such as embossing, heat transfer, pressing, screen printing…”).
Re. claim 15, Longinotti teaches a method for monitoring a patient, said method comprising utilizing the device of claim 1 (abstract – “A wearable communications garment that includes one or more user-selectable inputs integrated into the garment”).
Re. claim 16, Longinotti teaches a method for monitoring a sportsperson comprising utilizing the device of claim 1 (paragraph 0083 – “A wearable communication platform may not communicate just to the ears (through voice, sounds, music) and the eyes (images, photos, videos) of the receivers but may also communicate directly to their bodies (to their muscles, to their points of stress, to their sensitive points, etc.), for example, to improve movements in daily activities or sports…”; paragraphs 0160 and 0207).
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) 4-5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140070957 A1 – hereinafter Longinotti).
Re. claim 4, Figure 1A of Longinotti does not show the plurality of sensors has finger-like sections.
Figure 11B of Longinotti however shows a sensor embodiment in which the plurality of sensors has finger-like sections.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
94
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 plurality of sensors 3A of figure 1A, to incorporate the finger-like sections as taught by figure 11B since such modification would still predictably result in sensing a user's position, movement, and/or physiological status (abstract).
Re. claim 5, Figure 1A of Longinotti does not show the plurality of sensors comprises stepped, meandering OR spiral-like sections.
Figure 11B of Longinotti however shows a sensor embodiment in which the plurality of sensors includes meandering sections.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
94
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 plurality of sensors 3A of figure 1A, to incorporate the meandering sections as taught by figure 11B since such modification would still predictably result in sensing a user's position, movement, and/or physiological status (abstract).
Re. claim 13, Figure 1A of Longinotti teaches a plurality of sensors (sensors 3A), but does not show wherein at least two sensors from the plurality of sensors are of different sizes in comparison with each other.
However, Longinotti teaches that sensor contact surfaces can be between 10 mm and 150 mm in diameter (paragraph 0054 – “For example, a contact surface for an interactive sensor may be between about 10 mm and about 150 mm in diameter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least two sensor sizes, to incorporate the different sensor diameters of between 10 mm and 150 mm, respectively, since such modification would still predictably result in providing accurate vital sign parameters.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140070957 A1 – hereinafter Longinotti) in view of Ha (US 20100160744 A1 – hereinafter Ha).
Re. claim 7, Longinotti teaches the invention of claim 1 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein from the plurality of sensors in operation, the device selects at least one sensor, which in comparison with other sensors in the plurality of sensors, provides the greatest signal amplitude during a measuring period.
Ha teaches a similar biological signal sensing apparatus (abstract), and teaches the known technique of selecting at least one sensor, which in comparison with other sensors in the plurality of sensors, provides the greatest signal amplitude during a measuring period (paragraph 0073 – “…the biological signal sensor apparatus 110 selects a stationary wireless sensor node 120 having the highest wireless signal strength (i.e., a stationary wireless sensor node 120 at the nearest location) …”).
Therefore, 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 sensors of Longinotti, to incorporate sensor selection as taught by Ha, since such modification would predictably result in providing accurate vital sign parameters.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140070957 A1 – hereinafter Longinotti) in view of Connor (US 20150366504 A1 – hereinafter Connor).
Re. claim 8, Longinotti teaches the invention of claim 1 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein from the plurality of sensors in operation, the device selects at least one sub-group of sensors for a joint signal output.
Connor teaches a similar textile sensor system (paragraph 0071 – “In an example, one or more electromyographic (EMG) sensors can be created as part of a fabric or textile…”), and teaches the known technique of selecting at least one sub-group of sensors for a joint signal output (paragraph 0110 – “In an example, the entire available array of sensors can be activated to collect data during a calibration or test period and this data can then be used to select the subset of sensors which are activated on an ongoing basis”).
PNG
media_image4.png
224
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 sensors of Longinotti, to incorporate sensor subset selection as taught by Connor, since such modification would predictably result in providing accurate vital sign parameters.
Re. claim 12, Longinotti teaches the invention of claim 1 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sensors has a structure spacing of AT LEAST 15 µm.
Connor teaches a similar textile sensor system (paragraph 0071 – “In an example, one or more electromyographic (EMG) sensors can be created as part of a fabric or textile…”), and teaches the known technique of a plurality of sensors having a structure spacing of AT LEAST 15 µm (paragraph 0100 – “With respect to spacing, electromyographic (EMG) sensors can be spaced between 1 mm to 30 mm apart. Bipolar electrodes can be approximately 10 mm to 30 mm apart”)/
Therefore, 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 sensors of Longinotti, to incorporate sensor spacing as taught by Connor, since such modification would still predictably result in providing accurate vital sign parameters.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140070957 A1 – hereinafter Longinotti) in view of Waffenschmidt (US 20080218180 A1 – hereinafter Waffenschmidt).
Re. claim 9, Longinotti teaches the invention of claim 1 as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the sensors from the plurality of sensors in operation is individually read out.
Waffenschmidt teaches a similar textile sensor device (figure 3),
PNG
media_image5.png
196
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And further teaches the known technique in which each of the sensors from the plurality of sensors in operation is individually read out (paragraph 0008 – “The technical measure according to the invention is based on the insight that arranging a plurality of sensor elements, for example two or more, in the vicinity of each other allows a spatially resolved impedance measurement. In order to enable an independent read-out of these sensor elements, each sensor is arranged…”).
Therefore, 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 sensors of Longinotti, to incorporate sensor read-out as taught by Waffenschmidt, since such modification would predictably result in providing accurate vital sign parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm 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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796