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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 and 03/07/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 2: –configured– should be inserted after “detector”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No limitations were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
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 5-6 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 5 recites “a tear prevention portion extending from the first light blocking layer” which suggests that the tear prevention portion is a separate element from the first light blocking layer. However, the specification indicates that the first light blocking layer 72 includes the tear prevention portion 74 in ¶ [0046]. Therefore, it is unclear, in light of ¶ [0046] of the specification, whether the tear prevention portion is a component of the light blocking layer or separate from the light blocking layer. For the purposes of examination, the tear prevention portion will be interpreted to be a part of the first light blocking layer and extends from a light blocking portion of the first light blocking layer. Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0060109 A1 (Besko ‘109) (cited by Applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Besko ‘109 teaches a sensor (Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ [0024], [0031] depict a sensor 12), comprising: a light-emitting diode (LED) (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0030] depict an emitter 16; ¶ [0046] discloses that a memory unit has LED-related calibration data if the emitter 16 and/or detectors 18 are replaced, which indicates that the emitter 16 is an LED); a detector to detect light emitted by the LED (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0030] depict two detectors 18); and a body that supports the LED and the detector (The Examiner notes that the term “body” is being interpreted in light of Fig. 3 and ¶ [0039] of the Applicant’s specification which indicates that the body (which comprises a first bandage 60 and a second bandage 62) may comprise separate elements. Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] of Besko ‘109 depict a plurality of a plurality of laminated layers which support the flexible circuit 50), wherein the body comprises: a first bandage comprising a respective surface with a first type of adhesive (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] depict a first foam layer 60 which may be formed of foam, sponge, gel cushioning, fiber (e.g., woven fiber), or the like, all of which may be used as bandages; Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] depict an adhesive 65 applied to the bottom surface 70 of the first outer foam layer 60, wherein the adhesive may be an acrylic adhesive; The combination of the adhesive 65 and the first outer foam layer 60 is being interpreted to correspond to the first bandage); and a second bandage coupled to a portion of the first layer and comprising a respective surface with a second type of adhesive (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] depict an inner foam layer 58, wherein the foam layers 58, 60, 62 being adhered to each other using an adhesive; Fig. 2 depicts a bottom surface 66 of the inner foam layer 58 with a patient-contacting adhesive layer 88, wherein the adhesive material may be an acrylic adhesive or a hydrocolloid adhesive; The combination of the adhesive layer 88 and the inner foam layer 58 is being interpreted to correspond to the second bandage).
With regards to claim 7, Besko ‘109 further discloses the sensor is asymmetrical about a midline that extends in a lateral direction of the sensor (see Figs. 1-2 which depict the sensor being asymmetrical about a midline that extends in a lateral direction of the sensor) .
With regards to claim 9, Besko ‘109 further discloses a flexible circuit with the LED and the detector (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0031] depict a flexible circuit 50 with the emitter 16 and the detectors 18), wherein at least a portion of the flexible circuit with the LED and the detector is positioned between the first bandage and the second bandage (Fig. 2 depicts the flexible circuit 50 between the first and second bandages).
With regards to claim 10, Besko ‘109 further discloses the first bandage comprises a first light blocking layer (¶ [0034] disclose the adhesive 65 may be configured to block the ingress of light) and the second bandage comprises a second light blocking layer (¶ [0034] and Fig. 2 depict an adhesive 63 on the top surface 64 of foam layer 58, wherein the adhesive 63 may be configured to block the ingress of light), and wherein the at least the portion of the flexible circuit with the LED and the detector is positioned between the first light blocking layer and the second light blocking layer (Fig. 2 depicts the flexible circuit 50 between the adhesives 63, 65).
With regards to claim 13, Besko ‘109 teaches a sensor (Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ [0024], [0031] depict a sensor 12), comprising: a light-emitting diode (LED) (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0030] depict an emitter 16; ¶ [0046] discloses that a memory unit has LED-related calibration data if the emitter 16 and/or detectors 18 are replaced, which indicates that the emitter 16 is an LED); a detector to detect light emitted by the LED (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0030] depict two detectors 18); and a body that supports the LED and the detector (The Examiner notes that the term “body” is being interpreted in light of Fig. 3 and ¶ [0039] of the Applicant’s specification which indicates that the body (which comprises a first bandage 60 and a second bandage 62) may comprise separate elements. Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] of Besko ‘109 depict a plurality of a plurality of laminated layers which support the flexible circuit 50), wherein the body comprises: a first bandage comprising a first zone of a first adhesive (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] depict a first foam layer 60 which may be formed of foam, sponge, gel cushioning, fiber (e.g., woven fiber), or the like, all of which may be used as bandages; Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] depict an adhesive 65 applied to the bottom surface 70 of the first outer foam layer 60; The combination of the adhesive 65 and the first outer foam layer 60 is being interpreted to correspond to the first bandage); and a second bandage comprising a second zone of a second adhesive (Fig. 2 depicts a bottom surface 66 of the inner foam layer 58 with a patient-contacting adhesive layer 88, wherein the adhesive material may be an acrylic adhesive or a hydrocolloid adhesive; The combination of the adhesive layer 88 and the inner foam layer 58 is being interpreted to correspond to the second bandage).
With regards to claim 18, Besko ‘109 further discloses the sensor is asymmetrical about a midline that extends in a lateral direction of the sensor (see Figs. 1-2 which depict the sensor being asymmetrical about a midline that extends in a lateral direction of the sensor) .
With regards to claim 19, Besko ‘109 teaches a system (Fig. 1 depicts a patient monitoring system 10), comprising: a sensor (Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ [0024], [0031] depict a sensor 12) comprising a detector configured to generate sensor data indicative of a physiological parameter of a patient (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0030] depict two detectors 18; ¶ [0026] discloses processing the signals generated by detectors 18 to estimate the amount of oxygenated vs. de-oxygenated hemoglobin in a monitored region of the patient), wherein the sensor comprises a body to support the detector (The Examiner notes that the term “body” is being interpreted in light of Fig. 3 and ¶ [0039] of the Applicant’s specification which indicates that the body (which comprises a first bandage 60 and a second bandage 62) may comprise separate elements. Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] of Besko ‘109 depict a plurality of a plurality of laminated layers which support the flexible circuit 50 which contains the detectors 18), wherein the body comprises: a first bandage comprising a first zone of a first adhesive (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] depict a first foam layer 60 which may be formed of foam, sponge, gel cushioning, fiber (e.g., woven fiber), or the like, all of which may be used as bandages; Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] depict an adhesive 65 applied to the bottom surface 70 of the first outer foam layer 60; The combination of the adhesive 65 and the first outer foam layer 60 is being interpreted to correspond to the first bandage); and a second bandage comprising a second zone of a second adhesive (Fig. 2 depicts a bottom surface 66 of the inner foam layer 58 with a patient-contacting adhesive layer 88, wherein the adhesive material may be an acrylic adhesive or a hydrocolloid adhesive; The combination of the adhesive layer 88 and the inner foam layer 58 is being interpreted to correspond to the second bandage), and a monitor communicatively coupled to the sensor to receive and process the sensor data to determine the physiological parameter of the patient (¶ [0026] discloses a monitor 14 coupled to the sensor 12 and configured to estimate the amount of oxygenated vs. de-oxygenated hemoglobin in a monitored region of the patient).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of US 2016/0022182 A1 (Budin).
With regards to claim 2, Besko ‘109 discloses the sensor of claim 1. Besko ‘109 further discloses the first bandage comprises a backing (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] depict a first foam layer 60), wherein the backing comprises; the respective surface with the first type of adhesive (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] depict an adhesive 65 applied to the bottom surface 70), and the backing comprises a porous material (¶ [0032] indicates that the foam layers are formed of foam, sponge, gel cushioning, fiber (e.g., woven fiber), or the like, at least some of which are porous).
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the backing has through holes that extend through the first type of adhesive.
In a system relevant to the problem of attaching detecting elements to a subject, Budin teaches a backing with through holes that extend through the first type of adhesive (¶ [0047] and Fig. 4 depict an attachment pad 152 made of a combination of an adhesive layer and a light blocking fabric, which includes through-holes 154). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of layers for supporting the flexible circuit of Besko ‘109 to incorporate through holes as taught by Budin. The motivation would have been to provide additional ventilation (¶ [0047] of Budin), thereby improving user comfort.
With regards to claim 4, the above combination teaches or suggests the first bandage comprises a first light blocking layer coupled to the backing (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] of Besko ‘109 teaches an adhesive 65 coupled to surface 70 of foam layer 60, wherein the adhesive 65 may be configured to block the ingress of light to the sensor 12), the second bandage comprises a second light blocking layer (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] of Besko ‘109 depict a top surface 64 of foam layer 58 with an adhesive 63, wherein the adhesive 63 may be configured to block the ingress of light to the sensor 12), and the second bandage is coupled to the first bandage via adhering the second light blocking layer to the first light blocking layer (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0034] of Besko ‘109 depict the foam layers 60, 58 being adhered to another via adhesives 65, 63).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109 in view of Budin, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2020/0383837 A1 (Gowans).
With regards to claim 3, the above combination of Besko ‘109 in view of Budin teaches or suggests the sensor of claim 2.
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the porous material comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof.
In a system relevant to the problem of applying sensors using bandages, Gowans teaches a porous material of a backing comprising polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof (¶ [0299] teaches a layer 1470 being constructed from any porous and/or fabric material, wherein the material may be polypropylene or polyethylene). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the porous material of the above combination with polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof, as taught by Gowans. Because both elements are suitable for use in a bandage, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109 in view of Budin, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2009/0326354 A1 (Mao)
With regards to claim 5, the above combination of Besko ‘109 in view of Budin teaches or suggests the sensor of claim 4.
In view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above, the tear prevention portion will be interpreted to be a part of the first light blocking layer and extend from a light blocking portion of the first light blocking layer.
The above combination teaches a portion extending from a light blocking portion of the first light blocking layer (See annotated Fig. 2 of Besko ‘109 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
141
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Besko ‘109
The above combination is silent regarding whether the extending portion is also a tear prevention portion.
In the same field of endeavor of mountable sensors, Mao teaches an adhesive film having a thickness or strength to resist tearing (¶ [0120] discloses adhesive film is made stronger or thicker to resist tearing). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive 65 of Besko ‘109 to incorporate that it has a thickness or strength to resist tearing as taught by Mao. The motivation would have been to prevent tearing as the patient manipulates the device. See ¶ [0120] of Mao.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109 in view of Budin and Mao, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2021/0393171 A1 (Moody).
With regards to claim 6, the above combination teaches or suggests the sensor of claim 5.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the first light blocking layer and the tear prevention portion comprise a metallized tape.
In the same field of endeavor of mountable sensors, Moody teaches a metallized tape for adhering layers and for blocking light (¶ [0034] teaches and Fig. 4 depict top light blocking layer 358 being a metallized tape). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the adhesive of the above combination such that it is a metallized tape as taught by Moody. Because both elements are capable of blocking light, adhering layers, and having variable strengths and thicknesses which allows them to resist tearing, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of US 2013/0077095 A1 (Besko ‘095).
With regards to claim 8, Besko ‘109 discloses the sensor of claim 1.
Besko ‘109 further teaches the second bandage is configured to adhere to a patient to facilitate application of the sensor to the patient (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0038] depict the patient-contacting adhesive layer 88 laminated on the bottom surface 66 of the inner foam layer 58).
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the first bandage is configured to adhere to itself via the first type of adhesive
In the same field of endeavor of mountable sensors, Besko ‘095 teaches a first bandage sized and shaped relative to lower layers such that the first bandage is configured to adhere to itself via the first type of adhesive (Figs. 3-4 of Besko ‘095 teaches a bandage top assembly 70 configured to adhere to a lower layer (sensor body 40), wherein the lower layer is sized and shaped such that the bandage top assembly 70 and its patient-contacting adhesive layer 90 may fold and adhere to itself). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first bandage and the lower layers Besko ‘109 such that the first bandage is sized and shaped relative to lower layers such that the first bandage is configured to adhere to itself via the first type of adhesive as taught by Besko ‘095. Because both configurations are capable of being used for supporting a sensing element relative to a body, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 11, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the respective rejections of claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of US 2010/0292546 A1 (Gonopolskiy)
With regards to claims 11 and 15, Besko ‘109 discloses the sensor of claims 1 and 13.
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the second type of adhesive comprises a silicone adhesive.
In a system relevant to the problem of adhering sensors to skin, Gonopolskiy teaches a patient-contacting adhesive being a silicone adhesive (¶ [0013] discloses attaching a sensor pad 105 to the patient's skin with a porous skin barrier, such as a silicone adhesive with holes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second type of adhesive such that it is a silicone adhesive as taught by Gonopolskiy. Because both the patient-contacting adhesive layer 88 of Besko ‘109 and the adhesive of Gonopolskiy are suitable for adhering an element to skin, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent for another to obtain predictable results.
With regards to claim 16, Besko ‘109 further teaches the first adhesive comprises an acrylic adhesive (¶ [0034] of Besko ‘109 teaches the adhesive 65 may be an acrylic adhesive).
With regards to claim 20, Besko ‘109 discloses the system of claim 19.
Besko ‘109 further discloses the first adhesive comprises an acrylic adhesive (¶ [0034] of Besko ‘109 teaches the adhesive 65 may be an acrylic adhesive).
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the second type of adhesive comprises a silicone adhesive.
In a system relevant to the problem of adhering sensors to skin, Gonopolskiy teaches a patient-contacting adhesive being a silicone adhesive (¶ [0013] discloses attaching a sensor pad 105 to the patient's skin with a porous skin barrier, such as a silicone adhesive with holes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second adhesive such that it is a silicone adhesive as taught by Gonopolskiy. Because both the patient-contacting adhesive layer 88 of Besko ‘109 and the adhesive of Gonopolskiy are suitable for adhering an element to skin, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of US 2020/0289347 A1 (Gowans)
With regards to claim 12, Besko ‘109 discloses the sensor of claim 1.
Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the first bandage comprises a marker disposed at an edge of the first bandage to facilitate recognition of the edge.
In a system relevant to the problem of adhering sensors to skin, Gowans teaches a bandage comprises a marker disposed at an edge of the bandage to facilitate recognition of the edge (¶ [0263] and Figs. 4A-4C depict wound dressing 402 including orientation marks at the edges of the dressing which may be used to facilitate recognition of the edge). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first bandage of Besko ‘109 to incorporate a marker disposed at an edge of the bandage to facilitate recognition of the edge as taught by Gowans. The motivation would have been to communicate positioning information (¶ [0007] of Gowans).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of Moody.
With regards to claim 14, Besko ‘109 discloses the sensor of claim 13.
Besko ‘109 further discloses the first bandage comprises a backing formed from a porous material (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0032] depict a first foam layer 60 which may be formed of foam, sponge, gel cushioning, fiber (e.g., woven fiber), or the like, at least some of which are porous).
Although Besko ‘109 further discloses an adhesive 63 on the top surface 64 of foam layer 58, wherein the adhesive 63 may be configured to block the ingress of light (¶ [0034] and Fig. 2), Besko is silent regarding whether the adhesive 63 comprises a metallized tape.
In the same field of endeavor of mountable sensors, Moody teaches a metallized tape for adhering layers and for blocking light (¶ [0034] teaches and Fig. 4 depict top light blocking layer 358 being a metallized tape). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the adhesive of the above combination such that it is a metallized tape as taught by Moody. Because both the elements of Moody and Besko ‘103 are capable of blocking light and adhering layers, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besko ‘109, as applied to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 above, and in view of US 5,979,450 A1 A (Baker) and US 2,224,209 A (Allen)
With regards to claim 17, Besko ‘109 is silent regarding whether the first bandage comprises a tear prevention portion that comprises a metalized tape around at least a portion of an outer perimeter of the first bandage.
In a system relevant to the problem of reinforcing materials, Baker teaches a tear prevention portion that comprises a tape around at least a portion of an outer perimeter of a material (Fig. 10 and Col. 19, lines 36-54 depict a perforated reinforcement tape 302 around at least a portion of an outer perimeter of film 304, wherein the unperforated portion of the tape provides resistance to tearing adjacent the edge of the drape). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first bandage of Besko ‘109 to incorporate, based on the teachings of Baker, a tear prevention portion that comprises a metalized tape around at least a portion of its outer perimeter. The motivation would have been to reinforce the edge of the bandage from tearing.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the tape is metalized.
In a system relevant to the problem of providing reinforcement to a material, Allen teaches a metalized tape (Page 3, lines 27-52 discloses a metalized for providing resistance to tearing). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tape of the above combination to incorporate that it is metalized. The motivation would have been to provide further resistance to tearing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights