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 1-11 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
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassonjee et al. US Publication 2011/0288394 (hereinafter Hassonjee).
Regarding claim 1, Hassonjee discloses an electrode comprising: a conductive fiber fabric layer which is a fiber fabric having conductivity (40); and a conductive elastomer layer formed on at least one surface of the conductive fiber fabric layer and including an elastomer composition and a conductive filler ([0077] which details a conductive silicone rubber).
Regarding claim 2, Hassonjee discloses that the conductive fiber fabric layer is formed by knitting a yarn including conductive fibers ([0052]-[0056] for element 40, where the elastic yarns are coated with silver).
Regarding claim 3, Hassonjee discloses that the yarn is a conductive composite yarn obtained by winding the conductive fibers around an elastic fiber ([0056] which details a hollow spindle double covered nylon yarn with silver/copper wire).
Regarding claim 4, Hassonjee discloses that the conductive fiber fabric layer is formed by knitting the yarn into insulating fibers that insulate electricity ([0101]-[0102] which details that the base fabric has the conductive fiber fabric knitted into it).
Regarding claim 8, see contents of rejected claim 4 above.
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.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassonjee in view of Kurzweil et al. US Publication 2008/0287769 (hereinafter Kurzweil).
Regarding claim 5, Hassonjee discloses that the at least one surface of the conductive fiber fabric layer has a conductive coating layer in which a conductive coating film is deposited on an insulating fiber fabric formed of insulating fibers that insulate electricity ([0056] details silver being plated/coated onto a wire which is then wrapped around individual non-conductive fibers). There is a minor difference between coating silver on a wire then wrapping said wire around a nonconductive fiber/yarn and just coating the silver directly onto the non-conductive yarns outright. Kurzweil teaches a monitoring garment that utilized conductive fabric that teaches that either process can be utilized interchangeably for a comparable effect ([0069]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the conductive coating for the fabric layer as taught by Kurzweil with the layer of Hassonjee as they are art recognized equivalents and would have produced predictable results (providing a conductive layer for sensing biosignals).
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassonjee in view of Cho et al. US Publication 2019/0208629 (hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 6, Hassonjee discloses that the conductive elastomer is coated onto the conductive fiber fabric ([0077] which details conductive silicone rubber on fabric electrodes 40), but is silent on the immersion layer. It should be noted that depending on the coating process, an immersion layer would naturally form with the conductive elastomeric composition being partially embedded into the conductive fiber layer. As the deposition type was not disclosed, Cho teaches a fabric coating with conductive silicone rubber (same material of Hassonjee) as per Figure 2 element 120, which includes an immersion layer (122) that combines with the fabric beneath it at 110 (see also abstract, [0008][0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to utilize the coating process as taught by Cho with the two materials of Hassonjee as predictable results would have ensued (coating of silicone rubber to enhance electrical conductivity and reduce impedance at the sensing site).
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, see contents of rejected claim 6 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassonjee in view of Kurzweil, as applied to claim 5, and in further view of Cho.
Regarding claim 11, see contents of rejected claim 6 above, the references (Kurzweil and Cho) are combinable for the same reasons as mentioned above (see rejected claims 5-6).
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.
/B.M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights