DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed July 18, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification recites “[i]n some embodiment, an opening Fig. 10 depicts a table showing specific pressure ranges in mmHg that are used to treat specific disease, wounds or injuries”; however, Fig. 10 does not show a table. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “1100” on page 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 3, line 21, “to heal The garment” should recite --to heal. The garment--; page 3, line 24, “pem 1its” should read --permits--; page 3, line 25 “gam 1ent” should read --garment--; page 3, line 26 “gam 1ent” should read --garment--; page 10, lines 11, “applies” should read --applied--; page 11, lines 24-26 recites “[i]n some embodiment, an opening Fig. 10 depicts a table showing specific pressure ranges in mmHg that are used to treat specific disease, wounds or injuries”, however, this sentence does not make sense; page 12, lines 8 “1105are” should read --1105 are--; page 12, line 9, “1125” represents microsensor beads, then page 12, line 23, “1110” is defined as microsensor beads; and page 13, line 2 “830” should read --8B--. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the recitation of “a third layer, wherein the third layer has a wound or tissue contact surface” presented in claim 1. The specification on page 1 recites, “[t]he third layer is an exterior layer and is visible to outside viewers”. Further, the recitation of “the microparticles are spheres and the opalescent properties are provided by colors and color differentials produced by stacks of tiny silica spheres with a hard polystyrene core and softer outer shell” lacks proper antecedent basis in the specification. The specification recites “[c]olors and color differentials seen in opals are produced by stacks of tiny silica spheres within the gemstone. Mimicking that arrangement in the lab, using spheres with a hard polystyrene core and softer outer shell…”.
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 2, 8 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “the first, second and third layers have stretch properties that are consistent with each other” is indefinite in that it is unclear as to what Applicant means by the term consistent. Is applicant claiming the stretch properties are the same?
Regarding claim 8, “the nanoparticles” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “the multilayer fabric may be tested prior to packaging determining information including a color and pressure range relationship and the information is included with the packaging” is indefinite that the Office is unclear if Applicant is claiming the testing since the claim language uses the phrase “may be”. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to read “the multilayer fabric is tested prior to packaging determining information including a color and pressure range relationship and the information is included with the packaging”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,603,220 (hereinafter “Ahmed”) in view of Opal-Inspired Material Changes Color When Stretched (hereinafter “Drake”) and Simple method creates stretchy color changing films (hereinafter “Dhar”).
As regards claim 1, Ahmed discloses a cranial cap dressing that substantially discloses Applicant's presently claimed invention. More specifically, as can be seen by Figs. 2, 3 and 5, Ahmed discloses a multilayer fabric comprising (constituted by cranial cap dressing 2): a third layer (constituted by wound contact polymer 20), wherein the third layer has a wound tissue contact surface (see col. 5, lines 5-12, which discloses that layer 20 contacts the skin); a second layer (constituted by absorbent core 24), wherein the second layer receives and stores tissue moisture (see col. 4, lines 61-col. 5, line 4), and wherein the tissue moisture is received through the third layer (see col. 5, lines 12-18, which discloses perforations 22 which allows moisture and fluid transmission into the absorbent core 24); and a first layer of stretchable fabric (constituted by outer layer 4, see col. 4, line 40 which discloses the outer layer is preferably elastic), wherein the first layer has an external environment contact surface (see Figs. 2 and 5), and wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and third layer (see Fig. 5).
Ahmed does not disclose the external environment contact surface includes microparticles, wherein microparticles in the first layer causes changes in color under a light source when stretched and held at a specific pressure range, thereby providing an overall visible color indicating the specific pressure range.
However, Drake teaches it is known to layer microparticles in the form of tiny nanospheres onto stretchy fabric in order to allow the material to change colors when stretched, thereby mimicking the multicolored brilliance of an opal gemstone (page 1). The microparticles are spheres with a hard polystyrene core and a softer outer shell (page 5). It is inherent that this change in color occurs under a light source, e.g. ,natural light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the multilayer fabric of Ahmed by layering microparticles comprising spheres having polystyrene core and softer outer shell, on the first layer to mimic the multicolored brilliance of an opal gemstone for the purpose of aesthetics.
While, Drake does not disclose providing an overall visible color when stretch and held a specific pressure range, thereby providing an overall visible color indicating a specific pressure range, Dhar teaches it is known to use color changing material to make pressure bandages that provide a visual gauge of how tightly they are wrapped (see image below).
In view of Dhar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to have utilized the layered microparticles on the first layer of modified Ahmed to gauge how tightly wrapped the cap is on a patient’s head based on the color change, thereby indicating specific pressure ranges applied by the cap since significant compressive force on the patient’s head is not desired (Ahmed, col. 4, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 1, wherein the first, second and third layers have stretch properties that are consistent with each other. In as much as Applicant’s first, second and third layers have stretch properties that are consistent with each other, so too does the first, second and third layers Ahmed. Applicant should note that the disclosed second layer is cotton and the absorbent layer (6) of Ahmed may be formed from cotton, see col. 4, lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ahmed discloses multilayer fabric of claim 1, wherein the microparticles have opalescent properties reflecting color under a light source (note the rejection of claim 1 above, which discusses the multicolored brilliance of an opal gemstone, i.e., opalescence.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 3, wherein the microparticles are spheres and the opalescent properties are mimicked in a lab using spheres of hard polystyrene core and softer outer shell (as interpreted, see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 4, wherein the microparticles are layered on the first layer (note the rejection of claim 1 above) thereby producing a material that changes color when twisted, stretched, or bent as space between the microparticles shrinks and expands which diffracts and reflects light of different wavelengths, producing the colors (this feature is inherent in the technology of microparticles that have opalescence which is why they are called polymer opal, see page 5 of Drake).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ahmed discloses multilayer fabric of claim 4, except wherein a size of the microparticles affects the starting color, with larger spheres appearing red initially, and smaller spheres starting at blue.
However, Drake discloses “Layering those spheres on an elastic fabric produces a flexible opal, or material that changes color when twisted, stretched, or bent. As the space between the spheres shrinks and expands, the matrix diffracts and reflects light of different wavelengths, producing a changing rainbow of colors. The size of the spheres affects the opals' starting color, with larger spheres appearing red initially, and smaller spheres starting at blue (see page 5).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that a size of the microparticles affects the starting color, with larger spheres appearing red initially, and smaller spheres starting at blue, since it is taught by Drake.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 1, except wherein the microparticles are printed into the first layer using a printhead that incorporates an electric field and wherein varying the voltage affects the spacing between the microparticles, which in turn affects the color of the multilayer fabric when manipulated, and wherein the nanoparticles are fixed into place with UV light (claim 8).
However, Drake additionally teaches “the team can print patterns into the material, using a printhead that incorporates an electric field. As the spheres are laid down, varying the voltage affects the spacing between them, which in turn affects the color of that region. Producing patterns is as simple as altering the voltage in localized areas; the nanoparticles are then fixed into place with UV light.
In view of Drake, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have printed into the first layer using a printhead that incorporates an electric field and wherein varying the voltage affects the spacing between the microparticles, which in turn affects the color of the multilayer fabric when manipulated, and wherein the nanoparticles are fixed into place with UV light in order to provide the first layer with the desired color during stretch and to fix the microparticles in place.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 1, except wherein a viewable color of the multilayer fabric under a light source and constant pressure range indicates the specific pressure range based upon a calculation of a durometer value of the first layer and a size of the microparticles and a differential caused by durometers of the second and third layers.
However, Drake discloses “Layering those spheres on an elastic fabric produces a flexible opal, or material that changes color when twisted, stretched, or bent. As the space between the spheres shrinks and expands, the matrix diffracts and reflects light of different wavelengths, producing a changing rainbow of colors. The size of the spheres affects the opals' starting color, with larger spheres appearing red initially, and smaller spheres starting at blue (see page 5). Therefore, the size of the microparticles will impact the viewable color of the first layer.
Further, it is known that since all three layer will stretch together, the durometer of each layer must be determined and since the first and second layers has the least amount of stretch, the difference of the durometer values in the first and second layers must be subtracted from the durometer of the first layer to pressure range of the fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a specific size of the microparticles and calculate a durometer value of the first layer and a size of the microparticles and a differential caused by durometers of the second and third layers to determine the viewable color of the multilayer fabric under a light source, when constantly stretched at specific pressure range.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 1, except wherein the multilayer fabric may be tested prior to packaging determining information including a color and pressure range relationship and the information is included with the packaging.
While not disclosed by modified Ahmed, the Office however, contends that the device of Ahmed is fully capable of being tested prior to packaging to determine information including a color and pressure range relationship and the information is included with the packaging. Applicant must note that a positive recitation of this feature is not provided in claim 10, only that it may be tested and information including in packaging.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 1, wherein the multilayer fabric is formed as a closed loop against the tissue as at least a tubular form (the cap is a closed loop and is tubular in shape with one closed end).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 11, wherein the tubular form is incorporated into a stocking (the cap of Ahmed is a stocking for the head).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Drake and Dhar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,279,886 (hereinafter “Chavez”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ahmed discloses the multilayer fabric of claim 11, except wherein the tubular form is formed into a T-shirt. However, Chavez et al. teaches it is known to form t-shirts (shirt 102) in from tubular form. As can be seen from Figs. 1 and 2, the shirts have a tubular body and a tubular sleeve.
In view of Chavez et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the material of the dressing of modified Ahmed and constructed a t-shirt or other garment when dressings are needed to cover the toros and arms of a patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of Ahmed, Drake and Dhar discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not disclose, teach or render obvious the subject matter of microsensor beads incorporated into the contact surface enabled to detect conditions and relay signals to a microprocessor as recited in claim 14
Chavez discloses smart gear which includes electrically conductive fabric to monitor health parameters. Chavez further discloses use of pocket (206) capable of containing a transceiver capable of near-field wireless communication (see col. 7, lines 11-25) on a garment. Chavez does not disclose the three layer configuration claim by Applicant nor microsensor beads incorporated into the contact surface enabled to detect conditions and relay signals to a microprocessor as recited in claim 14, to detect at least temperature, fluid density, blood flow, oxygen level and pH, as recited in claim 15.
Chavez does not disclose the microprocessor is enabled with functionality and software to provide power to at least a conductive mesh layer incorporated in the third layer making contact with the microsensor beads are recited in claim 17, or wherein the conductive mesh layer enables the microsensor beads to be powered up and operate to output signals depending on the condition of the tissue as recited in claim 18, or, wherein the mesh material includes graphene traces communicating signals from the microsensor beads to the microprocessor as recited in claim 19, or and wherein the signals are wirelessly sent to a computerized device, such as a smartphone, or other type of computerized device capable of expressing the detected conditions on a display as recited in claim 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 9,125,727 discloses an elastic bandage that has different shades printed thereon and color chart indicating loose, firm and tight fits based on stretch and the shade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM M LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 5:30 am -11:30 am.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/KIM M LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786