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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or 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 26-28 and 51-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleson (US 20150342269 A1) in view of Berg (US 20150305677 A1) and Dumont (US 20180138616 A1).
With respect to claim 26, Oleson discloses a fabric article having electrodes (see paragraph 0020-0027 and Fig. 1-4: garment #10 with sensor band #36 that includes electrodes #16) and configured to removable receive a sensor module (see paragraph 0033-0034, 0037-0040 and Fig. 6-9: receptacle receives module #22 which contains sensing electronics and can be removed), the fabric article comprising:
a top layer (see paragraph 0024 and Fig. 2: outer fabric layer #44 is the outward top layer) ; and
a bottom layer (see paragraph 0024 and Fig. 2: inner fabric layer #42 is the body facing bottom layer);
wherein a sensor-module attachment structure extends away from the top layer (see paragraph 0030-0033: module #22 that is receives extends away from fabric layer #44).
Oleson further discloses that the electrodes are placed on interior surface of garment (see paragraph 0022-0023), however Oleson does not specifically disclose wherein the electrodes extend through at least the bottom layer. Oleson further does not disclose wherein a sensor-module attachment structure extends through and away from the top layer and is secured by the top and bottom layers.
Berg teaches wherein electrodes extend through at least the bottom layer (see paragraph 0068, 0092-0095, Fig. 13 and Fig 14A-14C: signal conducting contacts are coupled to conductive leads by way of openings that pass through fabric patch and bottom bonding layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Oleson with the teachings of Berg to have electrodes extend through at least the bottom layer because it would result in the predictable result of maintaining direct skin contact while the conductive portions of electrode remain covered (Berg: see [0068], [0092]-[0095]).
Oleson and Berg do not teach wherein a sensor-module attachment structure extends through and away from the top layer and is secured by the top and bottom layers.
Dumont teaches an attachment structure that extends through and away from a top layer (see paragraph 0064, 0070-0072 and Figs. 18E-18F, 20A-20E: through fabric mount and externally accessible holder) and is secured by top and bottom layers (see paragraph 0066, 0070-0072 and Figs. 17A, 18E-18F: bottom plate and holder secure a fabric/textile portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson and Berg with the teachings of Dumont because it would have resulted in the predictable result of utilizing mechanical coupling across fabric with two connection points (Dumont: see [0070]) to avoid mechanical and/or electrical failure at an interface between textile and electrical component (Dumont: [0030]).
With respect to claim 27, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein a bracket secures the sensor- module attachment structure to the electrodes (see 0027-0028 and Fig. 4: electrode lead #50 includes rear plate #52, tangs #54 and a bent spring portion where the tangs and plate combination is interpreted to be a bracket; and see paragraph 0029, 0036: housing #70 retains the lead #50 where the leas may be insert molded or press fit into housing; and see paragraph 0026-0027, 0036 and Fig. 3-5: tangs #54 pass through electrode holes #46 and are crimpled to electrodes #16) .
With respect to claim 28, all limitations of claim 27 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the bracket is sandwiched between the top layer and the bottom layer (see paragraph 0024, 0031: fibers #40 are located between layers where plate #52 is placed at the housing gear in between).
With respect to claim 51, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson in view of Berg and Dumong further teaches wherein the top layer and the bottom layer are secured together by the electrodes extending on opposite sides of the fabric article proximate a top surface and a bottom surface of the fabric article (Berg: see paragraph 0068, 0092-0095, Fig. 13 and Fig 14A-14C: signal conducting contacts are coupled to conductive leads by way of openings that pass through fabric patch and bottom bonding layer to seal substrate between top and bottom bonding layers).
With respect to claim 52, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses further comprising a conductive tape embedded between the top and bottom layers of the fabric article (see paragraph 0023-0024: conductive elements such as conductive fibers #40 between inner fabric layer #42 and outer fabric layer #44), the conductive tape forming electrical pathways between the electrodes and the sensor-module attachment structure (see paragraph 0021-0024: conductive fibers #40 form electrical pathway between electrodes #16 and receptacle #20 where module #22 is received).
With respect to claim 53, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the bottom layer comprises an adhesive surface for adhering the fabric article to a person's skin (see paragraph 0030: bonding of garment #10 can be accomplished using any of various means as will be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, including the use of adhesives).
With respect to claim 54, all limitations of claim 53 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the bottom layer further comprises a peal- away outer sheet for covering the adhesive surface until ready for use (see paragraph 0030: bonding of garment #10 can be accomplished using any of various means as will be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, including the use of adhesives, heat welding, stitching, or any of various other means).
With respect to claim 55, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the top layer and the bottom layer comprise a tape having an elasticity along the lengthwise direction but not in the widthwise direction (see paragraph 0023-0024: conductive elements such as conductive fibers #40 that are elastic and interpreted to be tape which are placed between inner fabric layer #42 and outer fabric layer #44).
With respect to claim 56, all limitations of claim 55 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein a distance between the electrodes does not vary with stretching of the fabric article (see paragraph 0021-0025 and Fig. 1B: electrodes #16 are at a fixed distance with a measurable potential different produced between electrodes).
With respect to claim 57, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the top layer and the bottom layer are cut from tape in a predefined shape (see paragraph 0024: inner fabric layer #42 and outer fabric layer #44 are fabrics or textiles in a predefined shape as see in Fig. 2) or footprint.
With respect to claim 58, all limitations of claim 57 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the footprint has a bilinear elasticity along a lengthwise direction but not in a widthwise direction (the alternative was chosen in claim 57; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 59, all limitations of claim 57 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the footprint of the fabric article is that of a rounded square (the alternative was chosen in claim 57; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 60, all limitations of claim 57 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the footprint of the fabric article comprises a "U" or "T" shaped portion (the alternative was chosen in claim 57; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 61, all limitations of claim 57 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the footprint of the fabric article comprises a bounded opening configured to receive an elbow or a knee (the alternative was chosen in claim 57; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 62, all limitations of claim 57 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the footprint of the fabric article comprises diverging arms extending away from the electrodes (the alternative was chosen in claim 57; see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 63, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson further discloses wherein the top layer comprises an adhesive bottom surface attached to an upper surface of the bottom layer (see paragraph 0024: inner fabric layer #42 and outer fabric layer #44 may be provided as a strip of fabric that may be woven and combined together; and see paragraph 0030: bonding of garment #10 can be accomplished using any of various means as will be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, including the use of adhesives, heat welding, stitching, or any of various other means).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleson in view of Berg and Dumont as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Chetham (US 20160135741 A1).
With respect to claim 64, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson, Berg and Dumont do not teach a printed graphic on a top surface of the top layer.
Chetham teaches a printed graphic on a top surface (see paragraph 0240: graphic layer is printed on patch to visually aid operator for proper orientation of patch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson, Berg and Dumont with the teachings of Chetham to have added a printed graphic because it would have resulted in the predictable result of visually aiding an operator to a proper placement (Chetham: see [0240]) of an electrode.
Claims 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleson in view of Berg and Dumont as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Quintanar (US 20130345539 A1).
With respect to claim 65, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson, Berg and Dumont do not teach wherein the top layer comprises a translucent top layer.
Quintanar teaches a top translucent layer (see paragraph 0073: electrode assembly with multiple layers where the top layer was radiolucent or radiotransparent causing it to be translucent in an x-ray).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson, Berg and Dumont with the teachings of Quintanar to have a translucent top layer because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having a structure be translucent in an x-ray to not obstruct or interfere with the appearance of the x-rayed subject and access to chest and abdominal areas (Quintanar: see [0073]).
With respect to claim 66, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson, Berg and Dumont do not teach wherein the electrodes comprise gel electrodes.
Quintanar teaches gel electrodes (see paragraph 0007: gel applied to electrodes to increase conductivity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson, Berg and Dumont with the teachings of Quintanar to have gel electrodes because it would have resulted in the predictable result of increasing conductivity of electrodes (Quintanar: see [0007]).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleson in view of Berg and Dumont as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Mitteldorf (US 20140275939 A1) and John (US 20180296834 A1).
With respect to claim 67, all limitations of claim 26 apply in which Oleson, Berg and Dumont do not teach wherein a length of the fabric article is 2.84 inches, a length of the fabric article is 2.84 inches, a height of the fabric article is 0.16 inches, and the electrodes are spaced apart 2 inches.
Mitteldorf teaches that a fabric article can be any size or shape (see paragraph 0026: garments may be made from woven polymer materials such as polyester or nylon fabric, cotton, or the like. In some cases, the material is selected to be transparent or substantially transparent to ionizing radiation. The garments may be manufactured in different sizes/cuts to fit or conform to any of various body sizes and shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson, Berg and Dumont with the teachings of Mitteldorf to have a fabric article be a certain size in order to conform to various sizes/shapes of a person’s body (Mitteldorf: see [0026]).
Oleson, Berg, Dumont and Mitteldorf do not specifically teach that the electrodes are spaced apart 2 inches.
John teaches electrodes spaced apart 2 inches (see paragraph 0062: distance between electrodes by at least 2-4 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oleson, Berg, Dumont and Mitteldorf with the teachings of John because it would have resulted in the predictable result of having electrodes be spaced apart a sufficient distance to allow sufficient depth of stimulation path (John: see [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
