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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claimed, “the stiffener being outside of the sensor layer” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. The claims should be amended to recite, –the stiffener layer being outside of the sensor layer– to correct this deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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) 1–5, and 7–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Everett et al. (WO 2021/092676 A1), hereinafter referred to as Everett.
Regarding claim 1, Everett teaches, “A wearable sensor pad (Fig. 9, 10) configured to be in contact with a substrate with a contoured surface, the wearable sensor pad comprising: a sensor layer (55) having a surface area that defines a sensing area, the sensor layer configured to measure values detected at a plurality of locations of the sensing area; and a stiffener layer (5) coupled to at least a majority of the surface area of the sensor layer, stiffener being outside of the sensor layer (see Fig. 9, footprint area of 5 and 55), the stiffener layer having a micro-cut pattern that reduces resistance of the stiffener layer in one or more predefined directions to enhance the sensor layer stretching or compressing in the one or more predefined directions to conform with the contoured surface (see para. [0171–0172]).”
Regarding claim 2, Everett teaches, “wherein the wearable sensor pad is an insole and the substrate is a shoe (abstract; para. [0078, 0087, 0254]).”
Regarding claim 3, Everett teaches, “wherein the substrate is part of a human body (abstract; para. [0017]).”
Regarding claim 4, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer forms a capacitance sensor and comprises a conductive layer and a dielectric layer (para. [0078, 0202, 0209–0215, 0221]).”
Regarding claim 5, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor pad (Fig. 9, 10) comprises a flexible enclosure (ref. # 201, 211; para. [0205]), a capacitive layer (para. [0078, 0210, 0216]), a stiffener layer (para. [0215]), wiring (202, 210 connect to 90 via 80, including traces), and perimeter stiffeners (para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 as disclosed).”
Regarding claim 7, Everett teaches, “a conductive grid, the conductive grid comprising a series of wires each separated by a non-conductive thermoplastic material providing strain relief (para. [0074, 0180, 0201–0205, 0211, 0275]).”
Regarding claim 8, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer comprises a conductive grid that comprises two conductive layers, a first conductive layer having a first series of wires arranged in a first direction and a second conductive layer having a second series of wires arranged in a second direction different from the first direction, the first and second conductive layer, when coupled, forming a plurality of discrete sensing locations at wire intersections of the first and second series of wires (para. [0074, 0180, 0201–0205, 0211, 0275]).”
Regarding claim 9, Everett teaches, “an electrical connector connecting the sensor pad to a wireless transmitter (see para. [0071, 0080, 0084, 0098, 0099]).”
Regarding claim 10, Everett teaches, “a plurality of rigid stiffeners at predefined locations of a peripheral region of the wearable sensor pad (see para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 teaches rigid stiffeners at peripheral region of pad, as the carbon fiber for example, protects the sensors from damage).”
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Everett teaches, “a peripheral region adjacent to the sensing area, the peripheral region configured to be folded away from the sensing area (see para. [0078, 0170, 0180, 0202, 0205, 0215, 0217]), the peripheral region comprises a perimeter stiffener (see para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 as disclosed).”
Regarding claim 12, Everett teaches, “An insole configured to be inserted into a shoe for a foot that has a contoured surface (Fig. 9, 10), the insole comprising: a flexible enclosure that is foldable (see para. [0078, 0170, 0180, 0202, 0205, 0215, 0217]; discloses materials that are foldable as enclosure); a sensor layer (55) having a surface area that defines a sensing area, the sensor layer configured to measure values detected at a plurality of locations of the sensing area; a stiffener layer (5) coupled to at least a majority of the surface area of the sensor layer, the stiffener being outside of the sensor layer (see Fig. 9, footprint area of 5 and 55), the stiffener layer having a micro-cut pattern that reduces resistance of the stiffener layer in one or more predefined directions to enhance the sensor layer stretching or compressing in the one or more predefined directions to conform with the contoured surface (see para. [0171–0172]).”
Regarding claim 13, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer is configured to measure signals corresponding to pressure exerted on the insole, and the insole comprises a peripheral region is configured to be folded to a location that experiences less pressure than the sensing area (ref. # 55, edges of 5 are foldable based on materials from which it is made (where intended use/functional language limitations of experiencing less pressure) exists on edge of 5).”
Regarding claim 15, Everett teaches, “wherein the stiffener layer lacks the micro-cut pattern on a portion of the layer at one or more predefined locations (ref. # 5 lacks pattern between where pattern portions exist; see Fig. 9 and para. [0171, 0172]).”
Regarding claim 16, Everett teaches, “wherein the stiffener layer comprises one or more stiffener tabs configured to conform to a heel of the shoe (ref. # 5 in Fig. 9 shown with cup shape at heel area, interpreted as stiffener tab configured to conform to heel of shoe; see also [0081, 0167-0169, 0171, 0213, 0241]).”
Regarding claim 17, Everett teaches, “wherein the stiffener tabs comprise a first surface that is configured to contact an interior of the heel of the shoe and a second surface that is configured to contact the foot, the first surface contacting the interior of heel of the shoe having a texture for increasing friction between the insole and the interior (see para. [0078, 0081, 0167-0171, 0180, 0202, 0205, 0213, 0217, 0241]; surface contacting interior of heel of shoe and second surface contacting foot disclosed as described, also having materials with textures for increasing friction between insole and interior).”
Regarding claim 18, Everett teaches, “A system comprising: a sensor pad (Fig. 9, 10) configured to output sensor pad data, the sensor pad comprising: a sensor layer (55) having a surface area that defines a sensing area, the sensor layer configured to measure values detected at a plurality of locations of the sensing area (see para. [0023, 0071, 0072, 0080, 0084, 0098, 0099]); and a stiffener layer (5) coupled to at least a majority of the surface area of the sensor layer, the stiffener being outside of the sensor layer (see Fig. 9, footprint area of 5 and 55), the stiffener layer having a micro-cut pattern that reduces resistance of the stiffener layer in one or more predefined directions to enhance the sensor layer stretching or compressing in the one or more predefined directions to conform with a contoured surface (see para. [0171–0172]); and a computing device (see para. [0074, 0082, 0084, 0085, 0098, 0140–0154, 0228, 0274, 0279]) in communication with the sensor pad, the computing device comprising memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors: cause an user interface to display a heatmap of a pressure differential across the sensor pad; cause the user interface to display a gait visualization; and cause the user interface to display a load graph of representing force exerted on the sensor pad.”
Regarding claim 19, Everett teaches, “wherein the user interface is configured to display statistics calculated from previous data stored by a server (see para. [0074, 0082, 0084, 0085, 0098, 0140–0154, 0228, 0274, 0279]).”
Regarding claim 20, Everett teaches, “a wireless transmitter configured to transmit sensor pad data from the sensor pad to a server (see para. [0074, 0082, 0084, 0085, 0098, 0140–0154, 0228, 0274, 0279]).”
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett (WO 2021/092676 A1) in view of Lei et al. (CN 111631486 A), hereinafter referred to as Lei.
Regarding claim 6, Everett does not appear to teach, “one or more friction pads configured to be folded away from the sensing area and provide a textured surface to frictionally couple the sensor pad to a surface.” However, Lei teaches the deficiencies of Everett (see description of heel pad 104, which is shown folded away from where sensing area as taught by Everett is located, “provided with circular bump”; Lei describes bumps as “increasing friction preventing insole sliding out”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Everett’s invention to include one or more friction pads configured to be folded away from the sensing area and provide a textured surface to frictionally couple the sensor pad to a surface.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Everett’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring there is minimal or reduced slippage between the insole and bottom/perimeter of a shoe, and to prevent the insole from sliding out of the shoe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852