DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 & 34 recites the limitation of “when” which in an interpretation it may be construed as a conditional limitation where the conditional limitations may not be given a full weight in light of the below decisions as for considering the other case scenario of “when” not being advanced… which the claim would not require this limitation to be a positive recitation.
In the recent Ex parte Gopalan decision, the PTAB addressed a claim where all of the features were recited in a conditional manner. A first step of “identifying … an outlier” was performed if “traffic is outside of a prediction interval.” A second step of “identifying” was performed “only when a count of outliers … is greater than or equal to two, and exceeds an anomaly threshold.” These were the only two elements of the independent claim. Thus, if the traffic is never outside Gopalan’s prediction interval, then the steps of the method are never performed.
However, the PTAB distinguished Schulhauser and noted that this construction “would render the entire claim meaningless.” Gopalan at p. 5. The Board went on to state, “Although each of these steps is conditional, they are integrated into one method or path and do not cause the claim to diverge into two methods or paths, as in Schulhauser. Thus, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires the performance of both steps…” Id. at p. 6.”
Claim Objections
Claims 21-24,26,28,30-32,35,38, & 41 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21-24,26,28,30-32,35,38, & 41 recites “and/or”, should instead recite “and” or “or”
Claim 21 recites “EM transducer”, “EM” should not be abbreviated at first instance
. 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 22,36, 38-39 & 41 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.
The term "partially" in claims 22 & 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "partially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner did not find a defined description related to the relative limitation/term “partially”.
The term "portion" in claims 23,32, & 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "portion" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner did not find a defined description related to the relative limitation/term “portion”.
The term "about" in claims 39 & 41 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner did not find a defined description related to the relative limitation/term “about”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the at least one EM manipulating material has higher permittivity and permeability than air.” which renders the claim indefinite. There is no indication in the claim or specification of the bounds of permittivity and permeability.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the at least one EM manipulating material has permittivity and/or permeability with high loss. There is no indication in the claim or specification of the bounds of permittivity and permeability.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the structures or combination of structures.” which renders the claim unclear. Claim 36 depends from claim 35 which does not specifically require a structure as being a part of the EM manipulating material, it instead discloses numerous materials as potentially being used instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 21-24, 26-28, 32-36, & 41 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based upon a public use or sale of the invention. As being anticipated by Kurzweil et al (US20080287770A1; hereinafter referred to as Kurzweil)
Regarding Claim 21, Kurzweil discloses a thoracic garment configured for bringing at least one EM transducer into contact with a thoracic skin surface area of a wearer (“A garment for ambulatory, physiological monitoring of a patient includes a belt, having first and second end portion with closures at the end portions to wrap around a user's chest… A garment for ambulatory, physiological monitoring of a patient includes a belt, having first and second end portion with closures at the end portions to wrap around a user's chest” [Abstract], “ The garment further includes a sensor that is selected from an ECG sensor,” [0015]), comprising:
at least one segment of a lining of the thoracic garment covered with and/or made of and/or including at least one EM manipulating material (“The garment, e.g., harness 10, 10′, 60, and 80 is made up in this example of two layers of material 20. Sandwiched between the two layers of material 20 is a wire 180 which, in addition to being insulated, may optionally be shielded.” [0092]);
and a housing arranged for supporting the at least one EM transducer, wherein when the thoracic garment is worn by the wearer the at least one EM transducer is positioned in front of a thoracic skin surface area of the wearer (“The removable sensor 150 has a snap 152. The snap 152 is attached to a sensor frame or housing 154 that is comprised of a firm but flexible material (e.g., rubber). The housing 154 is used to support a more flimsy, e.g. compliant lower Young's modulus material that provides a sensor membrane 156. The sensing membrane 156 is comprised of an electrically conductive and flexible material, e.g., a conductive rubber or conductive silicone and is disposed inside the housing 154 and has a major surface thereof that is exposed so that the sensing membrane 156 can make contact with the skin.” [0076]).
Regarding Claim 22, Kurzweil discloses at least the housing is made of or at least partially coated with the at least one EM manipulating material that affects an EM wave and/or field propagation (“The removable sensor 150 has a snap 152. The snap 152 is attached to a sensor frame or housing 154 that is comprised of a firm but flexible material (e.g., rubber). The housing 154 is used to support a more flimsy, e.g. compliant lower Young's modulus material that provides a sensor membrane 156. The sensing membrane 156 is comprised of an electrically conductive and flexible material, e.g., a conductive rubber or conductive silicone and is disposed inside the housing 154 and has a major surface thereof that is exposed so that the sensing membrane 156 can make contact with the skin.” [0076], “Shielding also extends over the outside of the garment over the area of the sensors (not shown) to protect the sensors from picking up EMI. Sensor shielding consists of a thin metal material, possibly fabric, which is electrically wired to the wire shielding.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 23, Kurzweil discloses at least a portion of the lining is made of a biocompatible fabric for safety and/or comfort, for protecting the wearer from direct contact with the at least one EM transducer (“The garments or harness 10, 10′, 60 and 80 are wearable and may be relatively comfortable for wearing all day or while sleeping, for extended periods of time. The harness material, being flexible and somewhat elastic, imparts some comfort in the wearing of the harness. The sensors are comprised of skin-friendly materials, e.g., materials chat generally do not irritate the skin and are flexible next to the skin, increasing the sense of comfort. The wiring from each sensor would be integrated into the garment, e.g., harness. Besides its comfortable tactile properties, comfort of the garment is enhanced by its thin and lightweight construction. It is wearable in everyday use because it is non-bulky and therefore inconspicuous under most clothes.” [0094]).
Regarding Claim 24, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM manipulating material comprises EM conductive material and/or EM resistive material (“The removable sensor 150 has a snap 152. The snap 152 is attached to a sensor frame or housing 154 that is comprised of a firm but flexible material (e.g., rubber). The housing 154 is used to support a more flimsy, e.g. compliant lower Young's modulus material that provides a sensor membrane 156. The sensing membrane 156 is comprised of an electrically conductive and flexible material, e.g., a conductive rubber or conductive silicone and is disposed inside the housing 154 and has a major surface thereof that is exposed so that the sensing membrane 156 can make contact with the skin.” [0076], “Shielding also extends over the outside of the garment over the area of the sensors (not shown) to protect the sensors from picking up EMI. Sensor shielding consists of a thin metal material, possibly fabric, which is electrically wired to the wire shielding.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 26, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM manipulating material is selected to affect the EM wave and/or field propagation by at least one of: absorbing and/or dissipating EM energy, conducting EM energy, being resistive to EM energy, isolating EM energy, deflecting EM energy, and attenuating EM energy (“The removable sensor 150 has a snap 152. The snap 152 is attached to a sensor frame or housing 154 that is comprised of a firm but flexible material (e.g., rubber). The housing 154 is used to support a more flimsy, e.g. compliant lower Young's modulus material that provides a sensor membrane 156. The sensing membrane 156 is comprised of an electrically conductive and flexible material, e.g., a conductive rubber or conductive silicone and is disposed inside the housing 154 and has a major surface thereof tha`t is exposed so that the sensing membrane 156 can make contact with the skin.” [0076], “Shielding also extends over the outside of the garment over the area of the sensors (not shown) to protect the sensors from picking up EMI. Sensor shielding consists of a thin metal material, possibly fabric, which is electrically wired to the wire shielding.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 27, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM manipulating material comprises resistive fibers or ferromagnetic material comprising fibers (“Other materials can be used such as conductive silicone, a wearable material commonly used for shock therapy electrodes, or conductive rubber provided by adding conductive, skin-friendly materials such as silver, gold or carbon to liquid rubber and molding the composition into the desired shape of a sensor. Other conductive materials can be used such as a conductive fabric provided by weaving fine threads of silver together with conventional fabric threads; or coating fabric threads with metal. Hydrogels can be used as a thin layer between any of these wearable sensor materials and the skin as previously mentioned. “ [0083]).
Regarding Claim 28, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM manipulating material comprises a plurality of EM manipulating materials that are layered, set in sewed and/or connected in patches and/or intertwined and/or embedded in a fabric portion or a layer thereof (“The garment, e.g., harness 10, 10′, 60, and 80 is made up in this example of two layers of material 20. Sandwiched between the two layers of material 20 is a wire 180 which, in addition to being insulated, may optionally be shielded.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 32, Kurzweil discloses at least a portion of a posterior piece and/or an anterior piece and/or at least one shoulder piece include the at least one EM manipulating material (“The garment, e.g., harness 10, 10′, 60, and 80 is made up in this example of two layers of material 20. Sandwiched between the two layers of material 20 is a wire 180 which, in addition to being insulated, may optionally be shielded.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 33, Kurzweil discloses further comprising the at least one EM manipulating material placed along an EM transmission path between a plurality of the at least one EM transducer (“The sensor includes a sensor membrane comprised of an electrically conductive, flexible material. The sensor membrane has a major surface thereof that is exposed to make contact with the skin of a subject, with the major, exposed surface that contacts the skin being a curved surface” [0011]).
Regarding Claim 34, Kurzweil discloses further comprising the at least one EM manipulating material placed below at least one layer of fabric for following a contour of a body of a wearer when the thoracic garment is worn, and for separating the at least one EM manipulating material from skin of the wearer when the thoracic garment is worn (“The sensor includes a sensor membrane comprised of an electrically conductive, flexible material. The sensor membrane has a major surface thereof that is exposed to make contact with the skin of a subject, with the major, exposed surface that contacts the skin being a curved surface” [0011], “The garment, e.g., harness 10, 10′, 60, and 80 is made up in this example of two layers of material 20. Sandwiched between the two layers of material 20 is a wire 180 which, in addition to being insulated, may optionally be shielded.” [0092]).
Regarding Claim 35, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM manipulating material includes metamaterials of structures and/or a combination of structures of metals and/or different materials with different permittivity and/or permeability with components with different inductance and/or reactance and/or resistive properties integrated therein to obtain a selected impedance (“The sensing membrane 156 may be temporarily covered with a conductive gel or a hydrogel film 158. A thin hydrogel film could be cut to size, and would provide excellent skin conduction to a wearable sensor material such as conductive silicone.” [0077]).
Regarding Claim 36, Kurzweil discloses the structures or combination of structures include one or more of: a resistor, a capacitor, and an inductive element (“The sensing membrane 156 may be temporarily covered with a conductive gel or a hydrogel film 158. A thin hydrogel film could be cut to size, and would provide excellent skin conduction to a wearable sensor material such as conductive silicone.” [0077]).
Regarding Claim 41, Kurzweil discloses the at least one EM transducer comprises a plurality of EM transducers, and further comprising at least one patch of the at least one EM manipulating material separating between the plurality of EM transducers by gaps of between about 1 centimeter (cm) and about 5 cm for EM energy within a frequency range of between 0.5 GHz and 4 GHz and/or with predetermined impedance discontinuities for manipulating EM energy propagation (“The ECG sensors can be provided with electrodes comprised of metal such as a conventional silver/silver chloride compound. While this metal material could be used, the metal material is somewhat inflexible, does not naturally stick to the skin, and can become slippery in the presence of perspiration. Other materials can be used such as conductive silicone, a wearable material commonly used for shock therapy electrodes, or conductive rubber provided by adding conductive, skin-friendly materials such as silver, gold or carbon to liquid rubber and molding the composition into the desired shape of a sensor. Other conductive materials can be used such as a conductive fabric provided by weaving fine threads of silver together with conventional fabric threads; or coating fabric threads with metal. Hydrogels can be used as a thin layer between any of these wearable sensor materials and the skin as previously mentioned.” [0083]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 25, 29-31, & 37-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurzweil in view of Craddock et al (US20080071169A1; hereinafter referred to as Craddock).
Regarding Claim 25, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material comprises EM absorbing material.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches various methods and apparatus are described for reducing signal artifacts resulting from reflections from the surface of an object [Abstract].
Craddock also teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material comprises EM absorbing material (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material comprises EM absorbing material as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 29, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material has higher permittivity and permeability than air.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material has higher permittivity and permeability than air (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material has higher permittivity and permeability than air as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 30, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material has permittivity and/or permeability with high loss.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material has permittivity and/or permeability with high loss (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material has permittivity and/or permeability with high loss as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 31, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material includes a construction of materials with different impedance for guiding radiation generated by the at least one EM transducer away from inside a body and/or on a periphery of a body of the wearer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material includes a construction of materials with different impedance for guiding radiation generated by the at least one EM transducer away from inside a body and/or on a periphery of a body of the wearer (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material includes a construction of materials with different impedance for guiding radiation generated by the at least one EM transducer away from inside a body and/or on a periphery of a body of the wearer as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 37, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material includes materials having at least one of: permeability loss tangent of (tans=p"/p') >0.01 or >0.3 or >0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 Megahertz (MHz) - 5 Gigahertz (GHz), and permittivity loss tangent of (tanS=E"/E')>0.0tor>0.3 or>0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 MHz - 5GHz.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material includes materials having at least one of: permeability loss tangent of (tans=p"/p') >0.01 or >0.3 or >0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 Megahertz (MHz) - 5 Gigahertz (GHz), and permittivity loss tangent of (tanS=E"/E')>0.0tor>0.3 or>0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 MHz - 5GHz (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material includes materials having at least one of: permeability loss tangent of (tans=p"/p') >0.01 or >0.3 or >0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 Megahertz (MHz) - 5 Gigahertz (GHz), and permittivity loss tangent of (tanS=E"/E')>0.0tor>0.3 or>0.6 for at least a portion of the frequencies within the range of 100 MHz - 5GHz as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 38, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material has partial conduciveness manifested by a surface resistivity between 20 and 10,000 Ohm per square (O/sq) and/or a volumetric resistivity which is >10 Ohm meter (flm).
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material has partial conduciveness manifested by a surface resistivity between 20 and 10,000 Ohm per square (O/sq) and/or a volumetric resistivity which is >10 Ohm meter (flm) (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material has partial conduciveness manifested by a surface resistivity between 20 and 10,000 Ohm per square (O/sq) and/or a volumetric resistivity which is >10 Ohm meter (flm) as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 39, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permittivity at a frequency of about 1 GHz, denoted c' between about 2 and 60, and c" is between 1 and 30.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permittivity at a frequency of about 1 GHz, denoted c' between about 2 and 60, and c" is between 1 and 30 (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permittivity at a frequency of about 1 GHz, denoted c' between about 2 and 60, and c" is between 1 and 30 as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Regarding Claim 40, Kurzweil discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permeability of absorbing material, denoted p' between 1 and 30, and u’’ between 1 and 30.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Craddock teaches that the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permeability of absorbing material, denoted p' between 1 and 30, and u’’ between 1 and 30 (“Skin reflections and mutual couplings can be considerably reduced by employing screens 23 in FIG. 4 between the antenna elements. Having these screens extend to the breast 1 will eliminate or significantly reduce the skin echoes 20 but will still allow the tumour echoes 21 to reach the antenna elements…. The screens are thin aluminium sheets with a thin layer of radar absorbing material on both sides to reduce multiple bounces and resonance effects. Various radar absorbing materials are available, and suitable products include Emerson & Cuming ECCOSORB FGM-40 (1 mm thickness), ECCOSORB BSR (0.25 mm, 0.5 mm thickness) and ECCOSORB FDS (0.75 mm thickness).” [0119-0120], ECCOSORB BSR is listed in applicant spec [0183,0185] as being the em manipulating material)
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kurzweil as outlined above with the at least one EM manipulating material has a complex permeability of absorbing material, denoted p' between 1 and 30, and u’’ between 1 and 30 as taught by Craddock, because it will eliminate or significantly reduce skin echoes [0119].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797