DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-9 and 29 are cancelled. Claims 11-18 and 21-28 are amended. Claims 10-28 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
No arguments or amendments were included in response to the rejection of independent claim 10. The 35 USC 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 14 and 24 were amended to narrow the list of options to just plugs. However, the cited button in Assad et al. also functions by mating two pieces together like a plug and therefore was interpreted as teaching the limitation. The rejection is maintained.
Claims 15 and 25 were also amended to reflect one of the options from claims 14/24. The Office believes the Assad reference can be interpreted to read upon the amended limitations.
The 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 16, 17, 26, and 27 are withdrawn.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 29 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claim.
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.
Claim 25 is 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 25 recites the limitation "the wearable clothing accessory or device" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office believes this should read, “the article of clothing or clothing accessory.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 13-15, 19, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Assad (US 2013/0317648, cited in the IDS).
Note, the Office believes priority for this application can be traced back to 14/664,832 cited in the ADS which was filed 03/21/2015 and published on 10/29/2015.
Regarding claim 10, Assad discloses a wearable clothing accessory or device comprising:
a band which is configured to be worn around a person's wrist or arm ([0040] – “elastic material 104 (e.g. a conventional article of clothing or even a single material sleeve worn over just a portion of the body, e.g. an arm or leg”);
electromyography sensors on the band ([0040] – “array of EMG sensors 102 are embedded into an elastic material 104”); and
a data processor on the band, wherein data from the electromyographic sensors is analyzed to identify hand gestures and/or function as a human-to-computer interface (([0045] – “The processor 110 and power supply 114 which include advanced decoding algorithms for gesture recognition may also be embedded in the elastic material 104”); [0040] – “In this case, the activity of the forearm muscles can be directly correlated to hand positions and gestures”; [0037] – “The Biosleeve system can be used to recognize static and dynamic gestures, change input modes, perform gesture control of a small tracked vehicle, telerobotically control a prosthetic hand, and perform point-to-goal and other tele supervision on a semi-autonomous two-armed manipulation robot”; [0046] – “the array of EMG sensors 102 operate to detect this muscle 112 activity and generate signals which can then be interpreted by a processor 110 to identify a gesture of the hand“).
Regarding claim 13, Assad discloses wherein the wearable clothing accessory or device further comprises one or more actuators which automatically contract the band to make the electromyographic sensors fit more closely to a person's body ([0036] – “Furthermore, the system may be packaged into clothing that is elastic and tight fitting, but still comfortable, to ensure consistent pressure on the dry contact or non-contact EMG sensors against the skin”; [0040] gives an example of spandex or neoprene material, the elastic fibers that comprise such material were interpreted as actuators for automatically contract the band around the arm and improving sensor contact against the skin).
Regarding claim 14, Assad discloses wherein the number, types, locations, orientation, and/or configurations of the electromyographic sensors can be customized and/or specifically- configured to optimally collect data concerning muscle activity ([0049] notes that the array can include snap button attachments for attaching any number of EMG electrodes for detection purposes; [0047] also notes that the sleeve can be shifted around the arm for proper placement of the array of EMG sensors relative to specific muscle groups) during a specific sport or other specific type of physical activity ([0057] notes using the sensing sleeve to detect dynamic movements of the fingers and arm gestures), and wherein the electromyographic sensors can be removably attached to different locations on the wearable clothing accessory or device by plug (see [0049] where snap button requires two parts to mate like a plug).
Regarding claim 15, Assad discloses wherein the number, types, locations, orientation, and/or configurations of the electromyographic sensors can be customized and/or specifically-configured to optimally collect data (as noted previously, the EMG electrodes can be attached to the sleeve using snap buttons per [0049], Fig. 1A shows sleeve 102 with an array of locations for snapping the EMG measurement electrodes) concerning muscle activity during a specific sport or other specific type of physical activity ([0060] – “activity of the underlying muscles is sense with the array of EMG sensors to yield EMG electrical signals therefrom”) , and wherein the electromyographic sensors can be removably attached to different locations on the wearable clothing accessory or device by insertion into channels (the sleeve shown in 1A shows an array of locations where EMG sensors can be snapped into place; the Office interpreted the rows and/or columns as a channel for location of the sensors).
Regarding claim 19, Assad discloses an article of smart clothing or clothing accessory comprising:
an article of clothing or clothing accessory configured to be worn by a person (the arm sleeve shown in Fig. 1A);
an energy-transducing member (the array of EMG sensors on the sleeve in Fig. 1A); and
an attachment mechanism (the arm sleeve also serves as an attachment mechanism, the elasticity of the sleeve making it possible to attach to the arm securely – this interpretation is possible in view of claim 20 limitations below).
Regarding claim 20, Assad discloses wherein the article of clothing or clothing accessory is a wrist band (the sleeve in 1A does surround the wrist or at least is capable of being placed around the wrist by sliding the sleeve down as far as possible), wherein the energy-transducing member comprises one or more electromyography sensors on the wrist band (covered in the claim 19 rejection), wherein the attachment mechanism is the wrist band (see claim 19 rejection), wherein the article of clothing or clothing accessory further comprises a data processor (110), and wherein data from the electromyographic sensors is analyzed to identify hand gestures and/or function as a human-to-computer interface (see claim 10 rejection for proper citations).
Claim 23 is rejected using the same argument for claim 13.
Claim 24 is rejected using the same argument for claim 14.
Claim 25 is rejected using the same argument for claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 12, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assad (US 2013/0317648, cited previously) in view of Yang et al. (US 20140343392).
Regarding claim 11, Assad does not disclose wherein the wearable clothing accessory or device comprises a track or pathway along which an electromyographic sensor slides. However, the use of structures that allow EMG sensors to slide on clothing was known in the arts. Yang teaches a system for detecting biometric data ([0001] – “The invention … specifically relates to an object, a method and a system capable of picking up … EMG signals … in a form of being worn on body”). A signal may be acquired by an electrode integrated onto textile of clothing, specifically an elastic line (track/pathway) that the electrode can slide on (see at least Figs. 4c, 5a, [0152], and [0156] for several embodiments that meet the claimed limitation). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Assad to include the ability of the electrodes to slide along a path as taught by Yang et al. because it can reduce body movement interference ([0139] of Yang discusses the advantages of the various embodiments).
Regarding claim 12, Assad does not disclose wherein sliding the electromyographic sensor changes the radial location of the electromyographic sensor on the circumference of the wearable clothing accessory or device. Modification in Assad using the same argument in claim 11 would result in changes in location as claimed.
Claim 21 is rejected using the same argument for claim 11.
Claim 22 is rejected using the same argument for claim 12.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assad (US 2013/0317648, cited previously) in view of Romevich (US 2013/0116608). Assad does not disclose wherein the one or more actuators are electromagnetic actuators. Assad’s actuators do not involve active electronics but rather rely on the inherent property of the elastic fabrics to hold the sensors close to the skin. However, Romevich teaches fabrics that can be activated to stretch tightly around limbs to provide a customized fit (Abstract). Romevich discloses, “[i]n other embodiments, a polymeric material can contract in response to application of a chemical reactant, electromagnetic energy, mechanical energy, or any other known and/or convenient stimulus” ([0047]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Assad’s fabric to use an electromagnetic actuator as taught by Romevich for tightening around the limbs because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assad (US 2013/0317648, cited previously) in view of Van-De-Velde (US 2017/0246073).
Regarding claim 17, Assad does not disclose wherein the one or more actuators are piezoelectric actuators. Assad’s actuators do not involve active electronics but rather rely on the inherent property of the elastic fabrics to hold the sensors close to the skin. However, Van-De-Velde teach a compression stocking that operates via piezoelectric actuation to tighten a fabric around a limb (see Abstract and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Assad’s fabric to use a piezoelectric actuator as taught by Van-De-Velde for tightening around the limbs because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assad (US 2013/0317648, cited previously) in view of Streeter et al. (US 2012/0296247). Assad does not disclose wherein the one or more actuators are inflatable actuators. However, Streeter et al. teach a system that can automatically tighten and frame holding sensors to a subject via inflation/deflation of an actuator (see the discussion in at least [0145], [0221], and [0224]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Assad to include an inflatable actuator as taught by Streeter to make the EMG sensors fit more closely to a person’s body because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 28 is rejected using the same argument for claim 18.
Conclusion
Claims 10-28 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791