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 Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 19-20 being previously withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
(a) Character of lines and legibility. Figures. 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are freehand sketches with handwritten reference characters and handwritten descriptive text are difficult to read. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires every line, number and letter to be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined; 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) requires reference characters to be plain and legible; and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires them to be at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. Corrected drawings are required.
(b) Photographs. Figures. 2C, 4B, 5 and 8 are photographs, which are acceptable to include, however it is very difficult to determine what is being shown in them due to the low quality/resolution.
(c) Illegible content. Figure 4C (simulation schematic) is substantially illegible; component designators and values cannot be read. Figures. 4B and 5 are photographs of instrument displays in which the annotations and axis labels are also illegible.
(d) Figure 3B is labeled "FIB. 3B" rather than "Figure 3B."
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the Figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one Figure is being amended. The Figure or Figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing Figure is to be canceled, the appropriate Figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining Figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining Figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Paragraph [0038] recites a handwritten equation that cannot be read effectively. Applicant must address the missing text; note that new matter may not be added under 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
(b) Paragraph [0039] uses reference character 308a for two different elements — first for the plate "tied to an input of the amplifier 312," and again for "the other feedback capacitor plate 308a ... on the same side of the dielectric 348 as the capacitive sensing plate 306." One occurrence appears to be intended as 308b.
(c) Paragraph [0037] refers to "a skin surface foil 236." Reference character 236 does not appear in Figure 2B.
(d) Paragraph [0057] states that the outputs are provided to "an instrumentation amplifier 1162." Figure 13 labels this element 1362.
(e) Paragraph [0018] recites "The simulation circuit is shown in Figure 4C," which is duplicated verbatim at [0041].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites "The sensor of claim 1," whereas the other dependent claims recite "The sensor device of claim 1." Consistent terminology is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites "wherein the dielectric body comprises a compressible material, such as compressible foam." The phrase "such as" renders the scope of the claim unclear, because it is not apparent whether the limitation requires compressible foam or merely recites it as one non-limiting example. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 4 and 5 recite, respectively, that the second input terminal "is tied to ground when using a bipolar supply" and "is connected to a mid supply when using a unipolar supply." No power supply is positively recited as an element of the claimed sensor device and as such it is unclear whether a supply is required by the claim, and, if not, under what circumstances the recited connection is required.
Claim 8 recites "wherein the capacitive sensor is a first capacitive plate." Claim 1 already recites "a first capacitive plate" as an element of the feedback capacitor. It is unclear whether the plate of claim 8 is the same plate as, or a different plate from, the first capacitive plate of claim 1. Amendment to "a sensing capacitive plate" (or similar) is suggested.
Claim 9 recites that the output "has a constant gain defined by capacitance Cs of the capacitive sensor and capacitance Cf of the feedback capacitor." It is unclear how a gain can be simultaneously "constant" and "defined by" two capacitances that the specification describes as varying with proximity (see [0031], [0052]). If applicant intends "constant" to mean invariant with respect to proximity, the claim should be amended to better reflect that.
Claim 12 depends from claim 7 and recites "wherein the body is skin." Neither claim 1 nor claim 7 recites a body. The limitation "the body" therefore lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears that claim 12 was intended to depend from claim 8 (or claim 11), each of which recites "a body."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claims disclose that the “body” acts as a second capacitive plate, which sounds as if it is being positively claimed as part of the sensor device. The claim should be rewritten so that the first capacitive plate is adapted to be placed in contact with a body. The present limitation also suggests that the first capacitive plate only acts functions as a capacitive plate if the body is part of the device.
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, 6, 8-10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al. US Publication 2005/0231214 (hereinafter Howard).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a sensor device (non-contact capacitive sensor 10 together with the associated sensor circuit of Figure 3; see Figures. 1-3; [0006], [0014]–[0015], [0018]) comprising: an amplifier having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output (operational amplifier 20, having inverting input 30, non-inverting input 28, and output 32 (Figure 3; [0018]-[0021]); a dielectric body (the insulation separating the three adjacent conductive plates 16, 18 and 19, which are "electrically isolated from each other"; see also [0015] and claims 18, 20 reciting that the active shield plate is "insulated from said sensor plate"). In the alternative, the dielectric medium adjacent the sensor plate, which may be "a solid material abutting the sensor plate" ([0016]); a capacitive sensor disposed on the dielectric body and having an output coupled to the first input terminal of the amplifier (sensor plate 18, which faces surface 12 and gap 14, is separated by the insulation from active shield plate 16 immediately behind it, and whose output signal is applied to the inverting input 30 of op-amp 20 "the inverting input 30 of the op-amp is connected to the sensor plate 18" [0020]; see also [0015], [0019]; Figures 2-3); a feedback capacitor having a first capacitive plate coupled to the output of the capacitive sensor and the first input terminal of the amplifier and having a second capacitive plate coupled to the output of the amplifier (capacitive feedback loop 22 and its capacitance C(feedback) 52, which Howard defines as "the capacitance between the output 32 of the op-amp and the inverting input 30 of the op-amp" ([0022]; see also [0018] and Figure 3, element 52). Because inverting input 30 is connected to sensor plate 18 ([0020]), the first plate of C(feedback) 52 is coupled both to the output of the capacitive sensor and to the first input terminal of the amplifier.
Regarding claim 6, Howard discloses that amplifier (20 maintains the sensor plate signal applied to the inverting input 30 equal to the high frequency signal 24 applied to the non-inverting input 28, see [0020]), the only feedback path being through the capacitive feedback loop / C(feedback) (elements 22, 52, [0018]-[0022]; see also Figure 3). In such a configuration the amplifier drives the second plate of the feedback capacitor to the potential, of polarity opposite to the charge delivered at the summing node, required to store on the feedback capacitor a charge equal and opposite to the charge delivered through the sensing capacitance to the first plate; this is what yields the relationship Output = Vin + Vin × C(measurement)/C(Feedback) recited at [0021]–[0022]. The recited biasing is therefore inherent in the disclosed structure.
Regarding claim 8, Howard discloses that sensor plate 18 measures the capacitance across the gap to surface 12 ([0015]), that "the capacitance 23 between the sensor and the surface 12 varies as a function of gap 14" ([0019]), and that the capacitance 23 signal from sensor plate 18 "is influenced by the dielectric of the adjacent medium," which may be an air gap, a fluid across the sensor plate, or a solid material abutting the sensor plate ([0016]). Sensor plate 18 is a first capacitive plate that, in combination with the dielectric of the adjacent medium, forms a sensing capacitor when in proximity with surface 12 acting as the second capacitive plate.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Howard discloses that "the output signal 32 (Output) from the op-amp 20 is equal to: Output = Vin + Vin × C(measurement)/C(Feedback)," where C(measurement) is "the capacitance between the sensor plate 18 and the surface 12" and C(feedback) 52 is the feedback capacitance ([0021]–[0022]). The gain of the amplifier output is therefore defined by, and defined as the ratio of, the sensing capacitance Cs and the feedback capacitance Cf. See also [0006] and [0019]. Claim interpretation (claim 9): "constant gain defined by capacitance Cs ... and capacitance Cf" is interpreted as a gain fixed by the values of Cs and Cf, not as requiring invariance with proximity - consistent with specification [0031]. See the alternative 103 ground below (claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Howard discloses that the signal output from sensor plate 18 is applied to the inverting input 30 and that the constant high frequency signal 24 is applied to the non-inverting input 28 ([0018]–[0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Howard discloses a guard circuit protecting the capacitive sensor from fringe capacitance ([004][0015][0020] passive shield plate 19 provides additional shielding ([0017]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Howard in view of Aimone et al. US Publication 2018/0348863 (hereinafter Amone).
Regarding claim 2, Howard discloses a dielectric body, but not that it comprises a compressible material such as compressible foam. Aimone discloses a head-worn device whose strap (111) carries capacitive electrodes (4300) that receive brainwave data and do not come into direct contact with skin 12 ([0236]-[0238]). On the surface of compressible foam 4302 adjacent the head, conductive layer 4304 of capacitive electrode 4300 is secured to the foam ([0239]), and connects to a signal conditioning and amplification circuit ([0244]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to form the dielectric body from a compressible foam as taught by Aimone with the sensor device of Howard in order to allow conformal contact to the wearer under strap tension ([0238]).
Claims 3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Juola et al. US Publication 2006/0074284 (hereinafter Juola).
Regarding claims 3 and 16-18, Howard is silent on the dielectric body comprising an adhesive. Juola teaches capacitance electrodes for sensing potentials at the surface of living tissue in EEG, EMG, EKG and GSR procedures ([0002]-[0003][0011]) where electrode (10 and conductive metal 16) is sandwiched between dielectric layers 12 and 14 "held together with a thin layer of adhesive 18" of comparable thickness to the dielectric layers ([0040]; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to skilled artisan before the effective filing date to form the dielectric body so as to comprise an adhesive as taught Juola with the sensor device of Howard as predictable results would have ensued (utilizing a constant, high capacitance). Howard contemplates a solid dielectric abutting the sensor plate [0016], and Juola establishes an adhesive of high dielectric constant as a known dielectric for the same arrangement; a conductive plate capacitively coupled across that dielectric to skin as the opposing plate. Juola then details that a constant, predictable capacitance ([0015]) that "does not vary with surface and signal characteristics, so there are minimal motion artifact results" [0044].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Smith US Patent 6,714,070 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claims 4-5, Howard applies high frequency signal 24 to non-inverting input 28 ([0018]–[0020]) and so does not disclose tying the second input terminal to ground on a bipolar supply (claim 4) or to a mid supply on a unipolar supply (claim 5). Smith teaches a charge amplifier (Figure 1) in which the transducer drives the inverting input of amplifier QA1 and a feedback resistor Rf and feedback capacitor Cf are connected between the output and that input - the topology of claim 1 and of applicant’s Figure 10. Smith teaches both recited alternatives: the non-inverting input is connected to virtual ground, and "with a unipolar power supply, virtual ground is set to be one-half of the supply voltage in order to maximize the dynamic range of the amplifier," whereas "with a bipolar power supply, the pick-up low electrode and the non-inverting input of the charge amplifier are typically connected to a ground reference instead" (column 1). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to bias Howard’s second input terminal in the manner corresponding to the supply selected as taught by Smith in order to maximize the amplifier’s dynamic range.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Zhong US Patent 9,634,626 (hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 7, Howard is silent as to the feedback capacitor being a variable capacitor. Zhong discloses an instrumentation amplifier that can be utilized in a variety of devices that includes a capacitive feedback closed-loop amplifier 100 in which feedback capacitors C2 and C3 are connected between the amplifier output and input terminals and set the gain A = C0/C2 = C1/C3 (column 5, lines 65 - column 6, lines 1; Figure 3), and teaches that "the first feedback capacitor C2 and the second feedback capacitor C3 both may be adjustable capacitors" so that the gain is programmable (column 6, lines 6–13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to make Howard’s C(feedback) 52 adjustable as Zhong teaches, so that the Cs/Cf gain is programmable and can be calibrated to a desired output level. Both references set gain by the same capacitance ratio, and Zhong is directed to instrumentation amplifiers for weak-signal measurement including medical applications (column 1, lines 21–26) - the amplifier class applicant employs at Figures 11 and 13.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view Billet, US Patent 4,835,747 (hereinafter Billet).
Regarding claim 11, Howard discloses a gain set by Cs/Cf with Cs varying with the sensor-to-body gap ([0019]), but does not disclose that Cf tracks proximity with Cs. Billet teaches a sensor device that includes forming the feedback capacitor from a portion of the sensor itself so that the external parameter modulating the sensing capacitance acts identically on both (Abstract; column 2, lines 10–13). Isolated portions 36 and 37 cut from the sensor’s own electrodes form the feedback capacitor, and their behavior with respect to the external parameters "is the same as that of the big capacitors" forming the sensor (column 2, lines 48–53; Figures 3–4). The result is that the feedback capacitor has the same behavior as the capacitor formed by the sensor, their ratio equal to the ratio of the areas used, giving "automatic compensation regardless of the disturbance-casing parameters applied to the sensor" (column 3, lines 7–20; and claim 10). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct Cf so that it is modulated by the same displacement as Cs, such that the two track together with proximity as taught by Billet with the device of Howard as set forth by Billet who explicitly details that the external parameter otherwise causes "considerable variation, as regards both amplitude and phase, in the transfer function" and "a high degree of measuring uncertainty" (column 1, lines 64 column 2, lines 3), whereas the compensated construction obtains the desired ratio "automatically by construction" (column 3, lines 10-15).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Zhong, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Bocko et al. US Publication 2014/0200469 (hereinafter Bocko).
Regarding claims 12-13, Howard is silent on the opposing capacitive plate is skin (claims 12, 13). Bocko discloses a non-contact ECG sensor (12) in which primary ECG electrode (52) is separated by insulating material (58) from secondary electrode 54 and guard plane 56 and forms capacitance Cs (31) with the subject as a function of the gap ([0029]; Figure 6A); patient 70 is sensed capacitively through clothing 60 ([0034]); the signal is amplified by charge preamplifier 84, whose gain is the ratio Cs/Cf ([0036]-[0037]; Figure 10); and the sensor system may be worn in clothing ([0012], [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to use Bocko’s non-contact biopotential application with Howard’s guarded capacitive front end in as Bocko shows the same charge-amplifier architecture already used for that purpose ([0011], [0037]) and identifies stray capacitance at the preamplifier input as the limiting problem ([0007], [0011]) the problem Howard’s guarded three-plate construction eliminates ([0020]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view Bocko.
Regarding claims 16-18, Howard is silent on the season being wearable or that it is used for the listed EP type devices. Bocko discloses a non-contact ECG sensor (12) in which primary ECG electrode (52) is separated by insulating material (58) from secondary electrode 54 and guard plane 56 and forms capacitance Cs (31) with the subject as a function of the gap ([0029]; Figure 6A); patient 70 is sensed capacitively through clothing 60 ([0034]); the signal is amplified by charge preamplifier 84, whose gain is the ratio Cs/Cf ([0036]–[0037]; Figure 10); and the sensor system may be worn in clothing ([0012], [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing to utilize the wearable aspect of Bocko with the device of Howard as predictable results would have ensued (utilizing a well-known sensor in Howard to a wider array of devices as mentioned by Bocko).
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