DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 4/1/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
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 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: Figs. 7A-7C do not contain a magnetic coil 330 as stated in paragraph [0042], and Fig. 6A does not contain spirals as stated in paragraph [0067]. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “330” has been used to designate both electromagnetic coils in paragraph [0042] and insulative material in paragraph [0077]. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 20100262214 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Robinson discloses a flexible circuit (circuit 100 in Fig. 10) configured for insertion into an internal body cavity of a patient ([0080]: the system 1000 is an intelligent implantable substrate), the flexible circuit comprising:
a flexible substrate (non-conductive base 330 in Fig. 10; [0080], [0089]: the non-conductive base is a fabric may be elastomeric – thus it is inherently flexible) comprising a bio-compatible material ([0008]: the non-conductive base is biocompatible) and extending along a substrate plane (the substrate plane is the planar center of the substrate in the thickness direction of the non-conductive base in Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4C, 5, 7, and 8-10 and as annotated below in Fig. 3A; the substrate plane is not interpreted as a physical piece of the flexible surface but rather the geometric plane in which the substrate extends);
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 1032 in Fig. 10) disposed on the flexible substrate (electrodes are disposed on the substrate as seen in Fig. 10; [0079]: the electrodes are formed as described with reference to Fig. 4A; [0058]: Fig. 4A illustrates a conductive filament sewn into a base in a pattern to form an electrode); and
a conductive wire (conductive filament 322 in Fig. 10; [0034]: the electrically conductive strands which are generally referred to as “conductive filament” can be wires) routed along the flexible substrate and connected to one or more electrodes of the plurality of electrodes by a stitch pattern (conductive filaments connect to the electrodes as seen in Fig. 10; [0078]-[0079]: the conductive filaments are substantially the same as those described with reference to Figs. 3A-3B and are connected to the electronic components as described with reference to Fig. 5; [0070]: the conductive filaments are stitched to the base substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1, the stitch pattern comprising at least one of a sewn stitch, a woven stitch, a patched stitch, and combinations thereof ([0034]: stitching a conductive filament to a base refers to sewing, embroidering or otherwise securing the filament to the base through the use of hand or machine needlework).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1, the conductive wire being routed along the flexible substrate in an alternating pattern between a first side of the substrate plane and a second side of the substrate plane ([0044]: stitching a conductive filament to a base refers to sewing, embroidering or otherwise securing the filament to the base through the use of hand or machine needlework. As such, lock stitches, chain stitches, running stitches, overlocks, cover stitches, couching, etc. may be used to secure the conductive filament to the base. The conductive filament may be sewn into the base through the use of one or more electrically non-conductive filaments, or conductive filament may be directly sewn into the base (i.e. without the use of a supporting non-conductive filament to secure the conductive filament); directly sewing the conductive filament into the base substrate through the use of running stitches would inherently create a pattern where the conductive filament alternates between a first side of the substrate and a second side of the substrate; additionally, as seen in Fig. 3A and described in paragraph [0051], when the conductive filament is sewn using a lock-stich of non-conductive thread, the conductive filament crosses the center of the substrate plane and thus crosses from one side of the substrate plane to another in an alternating manner).
Regarding claim 4, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1, the flexible circuit extending along a longitudinal axis, and the conductive wire is routed along the flexible substrate in an alternating pattern between a first lateral direction and a second lateral direction relative to the longitudinal axis ([0073]: the conductive filament may follow a non-linear pattern such as a zig-zag pattern to allow for extension of the filament upon stretching of the base).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1, the bio-compatible material comprising a medical grade fabric material ([0046]: the base is a biocompatible fabric; [Abstract]: the device is for implantation – since “medical grade” is not a legally defined or regulated term, it is simply interpreted as biocompatible and for medical use, which is the case in Robinson).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 6, the medical grade fabric material being conductive ([0090]: nitinol can be sewn into the base such that it forms a first shape prior to implantation and a second shape after implantation – sewing the nitinol into the base makes it a part of the fabric, and nitinol is inherently conductive which means the fabric has a degree of conductivity).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1, the bio-compatible material comprising a thermoplastic material ([0047]: the base can comprise a sheet or film of thermoplastic material).
Regarding independent claim 12, Robinson discloses a medical probe (Fig. 1) configured for insertion into an internal body cavity of a patient ([0036]: the device is configured for insertion and implantation in a patient) and comprising:
a flexible circuit (flexible circuit 1000 in Fig. 10) comprising:
a flexible substrate (non-conductive base 330 in Fig. 10; [0080], [0089]: the non-conductive base is a fabric may be elastomeric – thus it is inherently flexible) comprising a bio-compatible material ([0008]: the non-conductive base is biocompatible) and extending along a substrate plane having a first side and a second side (the substrate plane is the planar center of the substrate in the thickness direction of the non-conductive base in Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4C, 5, 7, and 8-10 and as annotated above in Fig. 3A; the substrate plane is not interpreted as a physical piece of the flexible surface but rather the geometric plane in which the substrate extends); and
a conductive wire (conductive filament 322 in Fig. 10; [0034]: the electrically conductive strands which are generally referred to as “conductive filament” can be wires) routed along the flexible substrate and connected to the flexible substrate by a stitch pattern ( [0078]-[0079]: the conductive filaments are substantially the same as those described with reference to Figs. 3A-3B and are connected to the electronic components as described with reference to Fig. 5; [0070]: the conductive filaments are stitched to the base substrate); and
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 1032 in Fig. 10) electrically connected to the conductive wire [0078]-[0079]: the conductive filaments are substantially the same as those described with reference to Figs. 3A-3B and are connected to the electronic components as described with reference to Fig. 5) on only the first side of the substrate plane (as seen in Fig. 4A, the electrodes are connected on the top side of the substrate plane; [0017]: Fig. 4A is a top view; all electrodes are on the same side as seen in Figs. 1 and 10; Fig. 3A clearly shows that the conductive filament stays predominantly on the first side unless a lock stitch is present).
Regarding claim 13, Robinson discloses the medical probe of claim 12, the conductive wire routed along the flexible substrate in an alternating pattern between the first side of the substrate plane and the second side of the substrate plane ([0044]: stitching a conductive filament to a base refers to sewing, embroidering or otherwise securing the filament to the base through the use of hand or machine needlework. As such, lock stitches, chain stitches, running stitches, overlocks, cover stitches, couching, etc. may be used to secure the conductive filament to the base. The conductive filament may be sewn into the base through the use of one or more electrically non-conductive filaments, or conductive filament may be directly sewn into the base (i.e. without the use of a supporting non-conductive filament to secure the conductive filament); directly sewing the conductive filament into the base substrate thro3ugh the use of running stitches would inherently create a pattern where the conductive filament alternates between a first side of the substrate and a second side of the substrate; additionally, as seen in Fig. 3A and described in paragraph [0051], when the conductive filament is sewn using a lock-stich of non-conductive thread, the conductive filament crosses the center of the substrate plane and thus crosses from one side of the substrate plane to another in an alternating manner).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson discloses the medical probe of claim 12, the substrate plane bisecting the flexible substrate (substrate plane bisects the flexible substrate as seen in the annotated Fig. 3A above.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Rault et al. (hereinafter ‘Rault’, US 20190083778 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1 as described above. Robinson further states that the conductive filament can be stitched with using any suitable method ([0044]).
However, Robinson doesn’t specifically disclose the conductive wire being spirally routed along the flexible substrate.
Rault teaches a catheter with an end effector having an array of electrodes ([Abstract]). The end effector has a fabric substrate 28, a conductive interface 24, and a conductor 32 as seen in Fig. 11. The conductor is spiraled along the substrate and then secured to the substrate by stitching ([0120]). This helical configuration helps preserve the flexibility of the lead while retaining sufficient strength to avoid breakage ([0080]). Forming the conductor in a spiral secured by stitching would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it is only a minor modification to the shape of the conductor of Robinson and would maintain the operability of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spiraled conductor of Rault with the device of Robinson such that the flexibility of the conductor can be preserved while maintaining sufficient strength to avoid breakage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Truckai (US 20120116384 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1 as described above.
However, Robinson is silent to a thread extending along the flexible substrate, with the conductive wire wrapping around the thread.
Truckai teaches a system for applying RF energy to tissue comprising a probe and an energy delivery surface with an electrically conductive knit component ([Abstract]). The system uses a conductive yarn in the knit structure, similar to the device of Robinson ([0066]). As seen in Fig. 35, the yarn comprises a non-conductive core element around which an electrically conductive filament is wound as seen in Fig. 35 ([0120]). Winding the conductive filament around a non-conductive core is an obvious alternative to the filament of Robinson in which the core is conductive and the non-conductive thread is wound around it. The substitution of one known element (the conductive filament wound around the non-conductive thread as shown in Truckai) for another (the conductive core wound with non-conductive thread as shown in Robinson) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the configuration shown in Truckai would have yielded predictable results, namely, maintaining a conductive path for signal transmission.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Koyfman et al. (hereinafter ‘Koyfman’, US 20060004353 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1 as described above. Robinson further states that the conductive filament is a fine biocompatible wire such as platinum ([0053]). Robinson also notes that other types of conductive filaments may be used ([0056]).
However, Robinson doesn’t explicitly state that the conductive wire comprises copper, a Monel alloy, a nickel cobalt alloy with a silver core, nitinol with a platinum core, nitinol, or combinations thereof.
Koyfman teaches an electrode device adapted for use in medical devices such as tissue ablation, including a sheet of fabric including at least one surface electrode formed as part of the fabric ([Abstract]). The conductive fabric is made of conductive yarns and nonconductive yarns woven together ([0030]). The conductive yarns can be formed from a metallic alloy wire with silk thread and a gold coating ([0050]). The metallic allow can be made of a silver and copper composition ([0050]). Utilizing the wire taught by Koyfman would result in the conductive wire comprising copper, as the claim requires. Furthermore, substituting the conductive wire comprising copper of Koyfman for the conductive filament of Robinson would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the wire from Koyfman for the wire of Robinson would have yielded predictable results, namely, maintaining a conductive path for signal transmission.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Nitzan et al. (hereinafter ‘Nitzan’, US 20060189898 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson discloses the flexible circuit of claim 1 as described above.
However, Robinson is silent to the conductive wire comprising twisted pairs of: magnet wire, copper and/or constantan wire, bundled shielded wires, or combinations thereof.
Nitzan teaches a sensor which can be implanted in a body part to collect data relating to the body part ([Abstract]). The sensor comprises a signal carrying wire which is composed of a twisted pair of insulated copper wires ([0035]). The wires each have a diameter of approximately 40 microns and each twisted pair carries an electrical signal from the respective sensor part ([0069]). Substituting the twisted pair of copper wires as taught by Nitzan for the conductive filament of Robinson would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the twisted wire pair from Nitzan for the wire of Robinson would have yielded predictable results, namely, maintaining a conductive path for signal transmission.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson as applied to claim 12 and described above, in view of De Graff et al. (hereinafter ‘De Graff’, US 8097926 B2) and in further view of Lipani (US 20150005680 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson discloses the medical probe of claim 12 as described above. Robinson further discloses the probe comprising a probe tip (tip of assembly 104 in Fig. 1) comprising: a framework (support 108 in Fig. 1), the framework and the flexible circuit being spaced along a vertical axis (when the probe of Fig. 1 is held vertically, the electrodes, conductors, and support are spaced along a vertical axis).
However, Robinson is silent to and insulative material, and the framework and the flexible circuit being disposed in the insulative material.
De Graff teaches a system and device that integrate stretchable or flexible circuitry, including arrays of active devices for enhanced sensing, diagnostic, and therapeutic capabilities ([Abstract]). The invention enables conformal sensing contact with the tissues of interest, such as the inner wall of a lumen, the brain, or surface of the heart to increase accuracy of the measurement and delivery of the therapy ([Abstract]). De Graff further teaches that an encapsulation layer may be utilized to coat the device ([Col 14, lines 30-59]). The encapsulation layers provide mechanical protection against the environment, electrical isolation, and can help increase the range of stretchability. Encapsulation aids in relieving strains and stresses on the electronic device and can be used to improve the biocompatible interface ([Col 14, lines 30-59]). Utilizing an insulative encapsulation layer around the probe of Robinson would be an obvious modification in view of De Graff and result in both the flexible circuitry and framework being inside the insulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the insulative encapsulation layer of De Graff with the device of Robison such that the probe is encapsulated to protect it from the environment, improve electrical isolation, relieve stress and strain, and improve biocompatibility.
However, the Robinson/De Graff combination is silent to the framework being substantially planar.
Robinson further discloses that the device can be used in the patient’s brain or spine and embodiments of the invention may be implemented in any brain stimulator, spinal cord stimulator, or other neurostimulators ([0035]).
Lipani teaches a device for treating lumbar back pain by delivering electrical pulses to sympathetic nerves located within the posterior longitudinal ligament of the lumbar spine ([Abstract]). Similar to the device of Robinson, the device of Lipani is a neurostimulator used in the spine of a patient. Lipani further teaches that the body of the lead may be shaped like a conventional catheter-like cylindrical form, or it may take a flat shape with rounded or curved tip which aids in preventing rotation and helps maintain directionality of the electrodes ([0047]). Modifying the support 108 of Robinson to be substantially planar is well within the ordinary level of skill in the art. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the support to be flat or planar as taught by Lipani because such a modification aids in preventing rotation and maintaining electrode directionality during spinal stimulation.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Ben-Haim et al. (hereinafter ‘Ben-Haim’, US 6690963 B2).
Regarding independent claim 16, Robinson discloses a medical probe (Fig. 1) configured for insertion into an internal body cavity of a patient ([0036]: the device is configured for insertion and implantation in a patient) and comprising:
a flexible circuit (flexible circuit 1000 in Fig. 10) comprising:
a flexible substrate (non-conductive base 330 in Fig. 10; [0080], [0089]: the non-conductive base is a fabric may be elastomeric – thus it is inherently flexible) comprising a bio-compatible material ([0008]: the non-conductive base is biocompatible) and extending along a substrate plane having a first side and a second side (the substrate plane is the planar center of the substrate in the thickness direction of the non-conductive base in Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4C, 5, 7, and 8-10 and as annotated above in Fig. 3A; the substrate plane is not interpreted as a physical piece of the flexible surface but rather the geometric plane in which the substrate extends); and
a conductive wire (conductive filament 322 in Fig. 10) routed along the flexible substrate (routed along the flexible substrate as seen in Fig. 10) and connected to the flexible substrate by a stitch pattern ([0044]: stitching a conductive filament to a base refers to sewing, embroidering or otherwise securing the filament to the base through the use of hand or machine needlework. As such, lock stitches, chain stitches, running stitches, overlocks, cover stitches, couching, etc. may be used to secure the conductive filament to the base. The conductive filament may be sewn into the base through the use of one or more electrically non-conductive filaments, or conductive filament may be directly sewn into the base), the conductive wire forming a coil ([0076]: the conductive filament is sewn into a tight bundle to form a coil) configured to generate a current that is indicative of a position of the coil when the coil is subjected to a magnetic field (a conductive filament formed into a coil would inherently generate a current when subjected to a magnetic field).
However, while the coil formed by the conductive filament would inherently generate a current indicative of the position when the coil is subjected to a magnetic field, this is not explicitly stated in Robinson. In the interest of compact prosecution, a combination is as follows.
Ben-Haim teaches a locating system for determining the location and orientation of an invasive medical instrument ([Abstract]). The system utilizes coils that generate signals in response to an externally applied magnetic field ([Col 4, lines 4-12]). The system can use a single coil, two coils, or three coils to determine the position and orientation of the distal tip of the catheter ([Col 10, lines 12-20]). Utilizing the coils of Robinson to determine the location of the device would be of routine skill in the art since the coils are already present in the device. Utilizing this system allows for easier maneuvering and placement of a catheter ([Col 4, lines 32-35]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the coils of Robinson to generate currents indicative of the position of the coil when the coil is subjected to a magnetic field as taught by Ben-Haim in order to allow for easier maneuvering and placement of the probe.
Regarding claim 17, the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination discloses the medical probe of claim 16, the coil comprising a plurality of spiral loops, each loop comprising a first section disposed on the first side of the substrate plane and a second section disposed on the second side of the substrate plane (Robinson [0076]: the conductive filament is sewn into a tight bundle to form a coil – a coil inherently comprises a plurality of spirals and sewing the conductive filament into the substrate inherently places sections on both sides of the substrate plane).
Regarding claim 18, the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination discloses the medical probe of claim 16, further comprising:
a probe tip (Robinson: probe tip in Fig. 1) having a periphery (Robinson: outside surface of probe tip in Fig. 1), the coil extending along the periphery of the probe tip (Robinson: the coil is disposed in the non-conductive substrate as seen in Figs. 1 and 10, thus the coil is on the periphery of the probe tip since it is on the outside surface of the probe).
Regarding claim 19, the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination discloses the medical probe of claim 16, further comprising:
a probe tip (Robison: probe tip in Fig. 1) comprising: the flexible circuit (Robinson: comprises the flexible circuit as seen in Fig. 1), a first lateral side (Robinson: upper side in Fig. 1), a second lateral side (Robinson: lower side in Fig. 1), and a distal end (Robinson: end of probe in Fig. 1),
the flexible circuit further comprising a second conductive wire (Robinson: multiple conductive wires shown in Fig. 10), and
the second conductive wire forming a second coil comprising a plurality of second spiral loops routed along the flexible substrate (Robinson Claim 21: conductive wires form a plurality of adjacent and parallel coils).
However, Robinson is silent to the first coil being on the first lateral side and the second coil being on the second lateral side.
Modifying the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination such that the first foil is on the first lateral side and the second coil is on the second lateral side of the probe is simply a rearrangement of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place a coil on the first lateral side and the second coil on the second lateral side, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would maintain functionality since the coils can remain parallel and would not affect the functionality of the probe. Furthermore, the instant application does not provide criticality to having multiple coils disposed on the lateral sides as it gives multiple embodiments in which there is no coil present as in Figs. 4-6, or only a single coil present as in Figs. 9A-9C.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination as applied to claim 16 and described above, in view of Freeman et al. (hereinafter ‘Freeman’, US 20200101278 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination discloses the medical probe of claim 16 as described above.
However, the combination is silent to the flexible substrate comprising a plurality of eyelets, the conductive wire extending through each eyelet.
Freeman teaches a patient-worn monitoring and treatment device including a plurality of electrodes ([Abstract]). While not particularly directed towards a probe, the art is applicable because it is directed towards attaching conductive wires and sensors to a fabric, like the device of Robinson. The device utilizes a conductive thread which communicates with the electrodes ([0203]). The conductive thread is routed on the surface of the garment and held in place with loops or eyelets ([0203]). Additionally, the instant application does not provide criticality to the eyelets as they are simply one of several options used in stitching the conductive thread to the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the eyelets taught by Freeman as a means to secure the conductive filament coil to the substrate of the Robinson/Ben-Haim combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights