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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 and 13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 “comprising high resistance fiber…” should be “each comprising high resistance fiber” to clarify that each of the at least two core-sheath structure yarns includes a linear conductor core and high resistance fiber covering material.
Claim 9, line 4 “covering it” should be “covering the linear conductor”.
Claim 10, line 4 “covering it” should be “covering the linear conductor”.
Claim 12, line 1 “a biometric information measurement device” should be “the biometric information measurement device”.
Claim 13, line 1 “a biometric information measurement device” should be “the biometric information measurement device”.
Appropriate correction 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 1-13 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the body” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the body of a user.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the core material” in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the change” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two core-sheath structured yarns” in line 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the at least two core-sheath structure yarns referred to in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to fluctuation in the biometric information.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the specific load elongation” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the change in output” in line 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the section” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 8 is generally unclear which causes the claim to be indefinite. In particular, the claim refers to moisture content which has not otherwise been described as being measured in either of claims 1 or 3, from which the claim depends. Furthermore, it is not clear whether “a sensor” is some separate sensor or the sensor member, how this sensor relates to or interacts with the sensor member, or what it means for the output for either of these to be “1/20 or lower” with respect to some other output. The limitation is interpreted as referring to a change in resistance which is output being 1/20 of the change in biometric information (e.g., a given value of a load applied to the sensor would produce a resistance change of 1/20 that value to be output by the sensing member).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the core-sheath structure yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the at least two core-sheath structure yarns.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a linear conductor” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same linear conductor introduced in line 4 of claim 1 or if it refers to some alternative linear conductor. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the linear conductor as described in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the core-sheath structure yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the at least two core-sheath structure yarns.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a linear conductor” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same linear conductor introduced in line 4 of claim 1 or if it refers to some alternative linear conductor. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the linear conductor as described in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the core-sheath structure yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the at least two core-sheath structure yarns.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “in partial contact in the fiber base material” in line 2-3 of the limitation. It is not clear whether this limitation is intended to refer to some number of core-sheath structure yarns being in contact with one another or if it refers to the yarns being in contact with the fiber base material itself. The limitation is interpreted as referring to some number of core-sheath structure yarns being in contact with one another.
Claims 2-13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence on claims which have been rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura (JP 2010014694 A).
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a biometric information measurement device (Figs. 6, 12A-I; paragraph 0010—load-detection device using load-sensing fibers) which comprises a fiber base material that includes a sensing member (First wire material 11a, second wire material 11b) and which is disposed in contact with a predetermined position of the body (Paragraphs 0242-0245—installed in woven or knitted fabrics used for car seats…installed in bed sheets…in the form of clothing…), wherein the sensing member has at least two core-sheath structure yarns (Paragraphs 0161-0164—sheath component 2a and core component 2b of this core-sheath wire…; Sheath component 2a, Fig. 6) comprising high resistance fiber (Paragraph 0164, 0194-- insulating material in the sheath component…) arranged as covering material around a linear conductor as the core material (Paragraphs 0161-0164; Core component 2b, Fig. 6), two of which are disposed in mutual proximity, and is able to read off the change in resistance and/or change in capacitance between linear conductors of two core-sheath structured yarns, and based on that change, measures biometric information or fluctuation in the same (Paragraphs 0020, 0040-0053, 0242-0245—change in resistance due to external force can be accurately detected as a change in current as a signal in response to the external force).
Regarding claim 2, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura additionally teaches wherein the sensing member is plied structural yarn having two core-sheath structure yarns further twisted together (Paragraphs 01332, 0166, 0198-0199, 0238, 0241— the second wire 11b is arranged spirally around the first wire 11a …The conductive wire according to the present invention may be used as a load-sensing fiber according to the present invention, either individually, bundled together, twisted together, or with their ends connected to one another, as an insulating portion of the conductive wire having an insulating layer covering a part of its surface).
Regarding claim 3, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura additionally teaches wherein the high resistance fiber arranged in the sensing member is made of fiber (Paragraph 0194) having a carbon-based conductive material provided on at least part of the surface (Paragraphs 0159, 0298—conductive wires used in the present invention include metallic wires (fibers), wires (fibers) spun from a general-purpose resin containing fillers such as carbon, and conductive polymer wires (fibers)), and is able to read off change in resistance between the linear conductors (Paragraph 0040-0053, 0159).
Regarding claim 5, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura additionally teaches wherein the biometric information is change in body posture (Paragraph 0242-0245—posture and weight).
Regarding claim 11, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura additionally teaches wherein two or more of the core-sheath structure yarns are disposed in partial contact in the fiber base material (Paragraph 0166, 0198-0199, 0238, 0241-- conductive wire according to the present invention may be used as a load-sensing fiber according to the present invention, either individually, bundled together, twisted together, or with their ends connected to one another, as an insulating portion of the conductive wire having an insulating layer covering a part of its surface; Paragraph 0061, 0081, 0090-0092-- no matter which part of the spiral wire 11b is subjected to an external force, the part of the wire 11b to which the external force is applied will elastically deform inward (towards the center where the wire 11a is located), thereby ensuring that it makes firm contact with the wire 11a; Paragraph 0235-0245-- load-detecting fabric according to the present invention can take the form of a knitted fabric in addition to the woven fabric…).
Regarding claim 12, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura additionally teaches clothing in which a biometric information measurement device according to claim 1 is disposed (Paragraph 0245—can be effectively used in the form of clothing to detect areas under stress and generate signals to change the amount of airflow).
Regarding claim 13, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 11. Miura additionally teaches clothing in which a biometric information measurement device according to claim 11 is disposed (Paragraph 0245—can be effectively used in the form of clothing to detect areas under stress and generate signals to change the amount of airflow).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20170196513 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. However, Miura does not explicitly disclose wherein the specific load elongation of the sensing member is 5% or lower.
Longinotti-Buitoni, in the same field of endeavor of a biometric measurement device having a sensor member with a conductive core and insulator surrounding the conductive core, teaches wherein the specific load elongation of the sensing member is 5% or lower (Paragraph 0390-- Both the conductive ink pattern and the insulator may be stretchable, up to some percentage, X% stretchable (e.g., up to 5% stretchable)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Miura to utilize the specific load elongation of Longinotti-Buitoni in order to enable the sensor member to be utilized for sensing very small changes in load via increased sensitivity to load, where Miura generally discloses that a high elastic modulus material and thus a lower specific load elongation is preferable (Paragraph 0111, 0115, 0118, 0278).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of McMaster (US 20160186366 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura generally teaches the biometric information may be used to monitor occupants of a vehicle or patients in a nursing home or for users concerned with air flow and stress in clothing such as athletes (Paragraphs 0241-0245). However, Miura does not explicitly disclose wherein the biometric information is related to respiration.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to respiration (Paragraph 0065, 0067, 0155, 0168, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Miura to be utilized for measuring respiration as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the system to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as respiration may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at greater risk for pneumonia, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies, or for athletes who desire to monitor their respiration during exercise.
Regarding claim 7, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. Miura generally teaches the biometric information may be used to monitor occupants of a vehicle or patients in a nursing home or for users concerned with air flow and stress in clothing such as athletes (Paragraphs 0241-0245). However, Miura does not explicitly disclose wherein the biometric information is change in moisture content of a biological surface.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to change in moisture content of a biological surface (Paragraph 0170, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Miura to be utilized for measuring respiration as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the system to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as moisture content may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at risk for ulcers or bed-wetting, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies accompanied by increased perspiration, or for athletes to monitor perspiration and hydration during an athletic activity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of McMaster, further in view of Nakajima (US 20190364983 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 3. Miura generally teaches the biometric information may be used to monitor occupants of a vehicle or patients in a nursing home or for users concerned with air flow and stress in clothing such as athletes (Paragraphs 0241-0245). However, Miura does not explicitly disclose wherein the biometric information is change in moisture content of at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to change in moisture content of a biological surface (Paragraph 0170, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Miura to be utilized for measuring respiration as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the system to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as moisture content may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at risk for ulcers or bed-wetting, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies accompanied by increased perspiration, or for athletes to monitor perspiration and hydration during an athletic activity.
Miura additionally generally teaches that the sensor has high sensitivity (Paragraph 0061, 0091-0092, 0101, 0113, 0119, 0135-0136).
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the change in output of a sensor with respect to change in moisture content at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information is 1/20 or lower with respect to change in sensor output for biometric information measurement.
Nakajima, in the same field of endeavor of a conductive yarn sensor for sensing biometric information, teaches wherein the change in output of a sensor with respect to change in moisture content at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information is 1/20 or lower with respect to change in sensor output for biometric information measurement (Paragraph 0036, 0072-- the rate of change of the resistance of the wire 3 when it is stretched from the initial state by 50% is preferably less than or equal to 5% of the resistance of the wire 3 before it is stretched).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the modified device of Miura and McMaster to utilize the particular change in output disclosed by Nakajima in order to predictably improve the ability of the sensor to ensure adequate sensitivity to changes in the biometric information.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Taylor (US 20020194934 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. However, Miura does not disclose wherein at least one of the core-sheath structure yarns is a core-sheath structure yarn wherein high resistance fiber as a covering material is wrapped in one direction around a linear conductor as the core material, covering it.
Taylor, in the same field of endeavor of a device for sensing information based on core-sheath structure yarns, teaches wherein at least one of the core-sheath structure yarns is a core-sheath structure yarn wherein high resistance fiber as a covering material is wrapped in one direction around a linear conductor as the core material, covering it (Fig. 5A; paragraphs 0043-0044-- conductive core 44 of each piezoresistive thread 41 is sheathed with at least one and preferably a plurality of elongated flexible filaments, e.g., a pair 45-46, made of a material which has a higher electrical resistivity than that of conductive wire core 44. As shown in FIG. 5, filaments 45, 46 are each wrapped around each core 44R, 44C to form a tight helical spiral around the core).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Miura, including a construction having a core wire with high resistance sheath covering the core wire, to teach the sheath is wrapped around the core as disclosed by Taylor as a matter of simple substitution of known elements in the art, in this case, substitution of different methods of applying an insulative sheath to a linear conductor in order to produce a sheathed conductor.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Tao (US 20060258247 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Miura teaches the biometric information measurement device according to claim 1. However, Miura does not disclose wherein at least one of the core-sheath structure yarns is a core spun yarn wherein high resistance staple fiber as a covering material is wrapped in random directions around a linear conductor as the core material, covering it.
Tao, in the same field of endeavor of a device having a sensor member made up of load sensing yarns, teaches wherein at least one of the core-sheath structure yarns is a core spun yarn wherein high resistance staple fiber as a covering material is wrapped in random directions around a linear conductor as the core material, covering it (Paragraph 0030-0048, Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Miura, including a construction having a core wire with high resistance sheath covering the core wire, to teach the sheath is wrapped around the core in random directions as disclosed by Taylor as a matter of simple substitution of known elements in the art, in this case, substitution of different methods of applying an insulative sheath to a linear conductor in order to produce a sheathed conductor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference patent encompass all limitations of the instant claims.
Specifically, the reference patent claim 1 discloses all of a biometric information measurement device which comprises a fiber base material that includes a sensing member and which is disposed in contact with a predetermined position of the body, wherein the sensing member has at least two core-sheath structure yarns comprising high resistance fiber arranged as covering material around a linear conductor as the core material, two of which are disposed in mutual proximity, and is able to read off the change in resistance and/or change in capacitance between linear conductors of two core-sheath structured yarns, and based on that change, measures biometric information or fluctuation in the same, wherein the sensing member is plied structural yarn having two core-sheath structure yarns further twisted together, wherein at least one of the core-sheath structure yarns is a core-sheath structure yarn wherein high resistance fiber as a covering material is wrapped in one direction around a linear conductor as the core material, wherein two or more of the core-sheath structure yarns are disposed in partial contact in the fiber base material.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20170196513 A1). The reference patent claim encompasses all limitations of instant claim 1. However, the reference patent fails to disclose wherein the specific load elongation of the sensing member is 5% or lower.
Longinotti-Buitoni, in the same field of endeavor of a biometric measurement device having a sensor member with a conductive core and insulator surrounding the conductive core, teaches wherein the specific load elongation of the sensing member is 5% or lower (Paragraph 0390-- Both the conductive ink pattern and the insulator may be stretchable, up to some percentage, X% stretchable (e.g., up to 5% stretchable)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent to utilize the specific load elongation of Longinotti-Buitoni in order to enable the sensor member to be utilized for sensing very small changes in load via increased sensitivity to load.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of Miura (JP 2010014694 A). The reference patent claims encompass all limitations of instant claim 1, where the device may be used to monitor stretching and bending deformations. However, the reference patent fails to disclose wherein the biometric information is related to posture.
Miura additionally teaches wherein the biometric information is change in body posture (Paragraph 0242-0245—posture and weight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent to be utilized for measuring posture as disclosed by Miura in order to predictably improve the ability of the device to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as posture may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at risk of developing pressure ulcers, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies or attention to the road, or for athletes who desire to monitor their gait or form during exercise.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of McMaster (US 20160186366 A1). The reference patent claims encompass all limitations of instant claim 1, where the device may be used to monitor stretching and bending deformations. However, the reference patent fails to disclose wherein the biometric information is related to respiration.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to respiration (Paragraph 0065, 0067, 0155, 0168, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent to be utilized for measuring respiration as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the device to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as respiration may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at greater risk for pneumonia, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies, or for athletes who desire to monitor their respiration during exercise.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of McMaster (US 20160186366 A1).
The reference patent claims encompass all limitations of instant claim 1, where the device may be used to monitor contact with liquid. However, the reference patent fails to disclose wherein the biometric information is change in moisture content of a biological surface.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to change in moisture content of a biological surface (Paragraph 0170, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent including measuring contact with liquid to be utilized for monitoring change in moisture as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the system to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as moisture content may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at risk for ulcers or bed-wetting, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies accompanied by increased perspiration, or for athletes to monitor perspiration and hydration during an athletic activity.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of McMaster (US 20160186366 A1) in view of Nakajima (US 20190364983 A1). The reference patent claims encompass all limitations of instant claim 3, where the device may be used to monitor contact with liquid. However, the reference patent fails to disclose wherein the change in output of a sensor with respect to change in moisture content at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information is 1/20 or lower with respect to change in sensor output for biometric information measurement.
McMaster, in the same field of endeavor of electrically conductive textile sensors, teaches a sensor for biometric information related to change in moisture content of a biological surface (Paragraph 0170, 0178-0179, 0193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent including measuring contact with liquid to be utilized for monitoring change in moisture as disclosed by McMaster in order to predictably improve the ability of the system to monitor a user in a car, in a bed, or wearing clothing, as moisture content may be of interest in a bed-bound patient at risk for ulcers or bed-wetting, to monitor a driver for medical emergencies accompanied by increased perspiration, or for athletes to monitor perspiration and hydration during an athletic activity.
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the change in output of a sensor with respect to change in moisture content at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information is 1/20 or lower with respect to change in sensor output for biometric information measurement.
Nakajima, in the same field of endeavor of a conductive yarn sensor for sensing biometric information, teaches wherein the change in output of a sensor with respect to change in moisture content at the section where the sensing member measures biometric information is 1/20 or lower with respect to change in sensor output for biometric information measurement (Paragraph 0036, 0072-- the rate of change of the resistance of the wire 3 when it is stretched from the initial state by 50% is preferably less than or equal to 5% of the resistance of the wire 3 before it is stretched).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the modified device of the reference patent and McMaster to utilize the particular change in output disclosed by Nakajima in order to predictably improve the ability of the sensor to ensure adequate sensitivity to changes in the biometric information.
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12655546 B2 in view of Miura (JP 2010014694 A). The reference patent claims encompass all limitations of instant claim 1 and 11, where the device may be used in a woven or knitted fabric. However, the reference patent fails to disclose clothing in which a biometric information measurement device according to claim 1 or claim 11.
Miura additionally teaches clothing in which a biometric information measurement device according to claim 1 or claim 11 is disposed (Paragraph 0245—can be effectively used in the form of clothing to detect areas under stress and generate signals to change the amount of airflow).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of the reference patent to be utilized in clothing as disclosed by Miura in order to predictably improve the device by enabling it to be used to easily and comfortably monitor a user by adapting clothing to function as the sensor, where the sensor may already be formed into fabric via knitting or weaving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights