DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-5 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satharasinghe (US 2016/0194792) in view of Tremmel (US 2020/0125195) and Istook (US 6341504).
With respect to claim 1, Satharasinghe teaches a textile assembly or a garment assembly comprising at least one piece of textile substrate where at least one electrically conductive thread is layered on the base textile substrate’s surface to form a conductive path (paragraphs [0313]-[0314]). The textile assembly has at least 80% stretchability (ratio (S1/S2) of at least 0.8) and at least 90% of stretch recovery of said textile substrate in any direction of elongation (paragraph [0320]). The pattern of the conductive thread has a geometry configured to accommodate stretching of the textile substrate, e.g., a triangle wave pattern, a sawtooth pattern, a sinusoidal pattern, an omega-shaped pattern, a square wave pattern, and an irregular wave pattern (the conductive yarn is in at least two directions) (paragraphs [0048], [0102]). Satharasinghe further teaches that textile substrates can have up to a maximum of 600% stretch (S0) (paragraph [0227]).
The ratio (S1/S2) range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Satharasinghe, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Satharasinghe teaches bonding the conductive thread to the textile substrate (paragraph [0027]), but is silent as to the conductive thread being stitched to the textile substrate.
Tremmel teaches a flexible substrate, an embroidered thread-pattern defining an ornamental feature on a first surface of the flexible substrate, and a touch input sensor comprising a set of conductive threads coupled to a second surface of the flexible substrate at a corresponding area of at least a portion of the embroidered thread pattern (paragraph [0005]). The conductive thread may be attached to the flexible substrate using embroidery, being sewn or stitched, or with glue, tape, or other bonding techniques (paragraph [0034]).
It is further known from Istook that it is known in the art to operatively affix conductive wire to an elastic band by sewing while still allowing the elastic band to stretch (col. 1, line 63-col. 2, line 8, col. 4, lines 44-59). The main consideration is that the conductive wire pattern expands and contracts without hindrance, such as a sinusoidal pattern or other curve-like patterns (col. 4, lines 40-59).
Since both Satharasinghe and Tremmel teach conductive threads coupled to a flexible substrate it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of bonding the conductive thread to the textile substrate with stitching the conductive thread to the textile substrate because both bonding and stitching are known in the art as suitable methods for attaching conductive thread to a textile body. The simple substitution is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In the instant case, it is known from the prior art that stitching a conductive thread in a pattern such as a sinusoidal pattern would provide the predictable result of a conductive textile substrate that is capable of elongation.
Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the elongation ratio being measured in accordance with the elongation (D-method) of JIS L1096 in the presence of a load of 5 N applied thereto. It is reasonable to presume that the elongation ratio measured by the claimed property is inherent to Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook. Support for said presumption is found in that Satharasinghe teaches a wide range of suitable elongation options, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 2, Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Satharasinghe teaches the textile assembly has at least 80% stretchability (ratio (S1/S2) of at least 0.8) and at least 90% of stretch recovery of said textile substrate in any direction of elongation (paragraph [0320]) and that textile substrates can have up to a maximum of 600% stretch (paragraph [0227]). Therefore the load elongation of the entire textile assembly is up to 480%.
Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the elongation ratio being measured in accordance with the elongation (D-method) of JIS L1096 in the presence of a load of 5 N applied thereto. It is reasonable to presume that the elongation ratio measured by the claimed property is inherent to Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook. Support for said presumption is found in that Satharasinghe teaches a wide range of suitable elongation options, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 3, Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Satharasinghe further teaches that it is possible to apply conductive paths in a manner such that the circuits can accommodate high levels of stretch in one or more desired directions with no (or at least very insignificant – less than 1%) changes in conductivity (paragraph [0127]). Resistance and electrical conductivity are inversely related, therefore no change in electrical conductivity would result in no change in resistance (0% resistive value change ratio).
With respect to claim 4, Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel is silent as to the textile substrate having a thickness of at most 1 mm.
Istook further teaches suitable yarns for the fabric garment include single ply, 150 denier polyester (col. 4, lines 21-29). This results in a single fiber thickness of 0.123 mm1. In a woven or knitted fabric the overlap of two fibers would result in a fabric thickness of approximately 0.246 mm.
Since both Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teach stretchable garments comprising a conductive thread attached thereto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the textile substrate of Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel to comprise single ply, 150 denier polyester because it is known in the art as suitable for garments with comprising conductive threads and would yield the predictable result of a flexible, elastic, garment.
With respect to claim 5, Satharasinghe in view of Tremmel and Istook teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Satharasinghe is silent as to a space between each conductive yarn being 1 to 10 mm.
Tremmel further teaches that a pitch associated with a plurality of conductive threads can be varied to adjust the sensitivity at different locations (paragraph [0041]). The pitch of a group of conductive threads can refer to the spacing between individual threads of the group (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the space between each conductive thread of Satharasinghe to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a spacing that provides the desired sensitivity. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Antonevich (US 4475141) discloses a conductive strap for tethering personnel to electrical ground comprises a stretchable band of an elastomeric non-conductive fabric for resiliently embracing a body member in a closed loop (abstract). At least one row of a continuous conductive thread is embroidered to the interior surface of the band by a line of stitching which includes a non-conductive thread component penetrating through the fabric from the outside and interlocking with the interior conductive thread component, preferably sewn in a zig-zag pattern (abstract). The conductive thread is coupled to a clasp for electrical connection to ground through a cable tether (abstract).
Gal (US 2006/0122528) discloses improved IP sensors that both have improved sensitivity, performance, and other properties and are multifunctional (abstract). The improved IP sensors have IP sensor conductors with waveforms having legs that are substantially parallel throughout the operating range of stretch (abstract). The multifunctional IP sensors include, in addition to IP sensors, accessory conductors, additional sensors, and other compatible modules (abstract). This inventions also includes embodiments of apparel incorporating the improved IP sensors (abstract). This apparel can range from band-like to shirt-like, and so forth, and include one or more IP sensors sensitive to expansions and contractions of underlying regions of a monitored subject (abstract).
Greenspan (US 2017/0347721) discloses conductive thread stitched stretch sensors (abstract). The conductive thread stitched stretch sensors include a textile configured to stretch in at least one dimension and a conductive thread having a resistance between a first point and a second point stitched to the textile in a stitch geometry, the stitch geometry configured to stretch the conductive thread as the textile is stretched in the at least one dimension such that the resistance of the conductive thread increases between the first point and the second point due to elongation of the conductive thread as the textile is stretched (abstract). Also described are garments including conductive thread stitched stretch sensors and methods for making such sensors (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Converted using a polyester density of 1.4g/cm3
Prosecution Insights