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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 185.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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:
Paragraph 17 is objected to because it recites specific claim numbers, which is improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to Claim 1, the phrase “the textile” should read --the active textile--.
In regards to Claim 15, the phrase “the textile” should read --the active textile--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 17, 19, and 20 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.
In regards to Claim 14, the phrase “the computer” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regards to Claim 17, the phrase “within said fiber” is unclear. Which fiber?
In regards to Claim 19, the phrase “a particular layer” is unclear. What layers?
In regards to Claim 20, the phrase “generating physical movements of the active textile” is unclear. Claim 20 depends from Claim 15, which states “producing physical movements within the textile”. These phrases do not agree. One moves the active textile, while the other moves something within a textile.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Efrati (20180052516).
In regards to Claim 1, Efrati teaches an active textile, comprising:
a weave (Claim 3) comprised of threads made of a plurality of conductive fibers (Details 14); a plurality of magnets (Details 12); and a plurality of non-conductive, non-magnetic flexible fabric fibers (Claim 4);
a controller (Detail 20) for generating and selectively transmitting electric current along the conductive fibers; and
a power source (Paragraph 14, microcurrent);
wherein selective transmittal of electric current along the conductive fibers selectively induces magnetic fields that operate on the magnets, thereby producing physical movements within the textile (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 2, Efrati teaches the induced physical movements are vibrations of varying intensities (Paragraph 33).
In regards to Claim 3, Efrati teaches the control circuit includes a transceiver (Detail 20) for wirelessly receiving commands to selectively transmit the electrical pulses.
In regards to Claim 4, Efrati teaches each conductive fiber includes an inner conductive core and an insulating sheath surrounding the conductive core (Claim 1).
In regards to Claim 13, Efrati teaches a garment (Paragraph 35).
In regards to Claim 15, Efrati teaches a method of controlling movement of an active textile, comprising:
selectively transmitting electric current along conductive fibers of an active textile (Abstract), wherein the active textile includes a weave (Claim 3) comprised of threads made of a plurality of conductive fibers (Details 14); a plurality of magnets (Details 12); and a plurality of non- conductive, non-magnetic flexible fabric fibers (Claim 4); a control circuit (Detail 20) for generating and selectively transmitting electric current along the conductive fibers; and a power source (Paragraph 14; microcurrent);
wherein selective transmittal of electric current along the conductive fibers selectively induces magnetic fields that operate on the magnets, thereby producing physical movements within the textile (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 15, Efrati teaches the physical movements comprise vibrations of varying intensities (Paragraph 33).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati.
In regards to Claim 5, while Efrati essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically state the amount of current used. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a current of 200 milliamps or less, so as to properly power the device while protecting the user. Applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the specific use of 200 milliamps or less, beyond what is well known in the art; mainly, the device must operate, but not at a charge which would harm a user. The ordinarily skilled artisan, creating a garment to be worn, would know that the device of Efrati must have sufficient power, while also not harming the user.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Ma et al (20200142485).
In regards to Claim 14, while Efrati essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the active textile is part of a system comprising a display and a computer program product comprising software instructions that, when executed by the computer, cause (1) display of a scene on the display; and (2) issuing of instructions from the control circuit to generate physical movements of the active textile that are consistent with the scene. Ma, however, teaches that such systems are well known in the art (Paragraph 14, 47, 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the active textile in such a system, so as to make the experience more immersive. Cooperation between the active textile and system components would allow the user to experience a virtual interaction.
In regards to Claim 20, Ma teaches a scene would be displayed on the display, and physical movements of the active textile would be consistent with the scene (Paragraphs 14, 47, 48).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Hightower, III et al (11035058).
In regards to Claim 6, while Efrati essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically each the magnets are embedded in capsules oriented along the length of fibers that are parallel to the conductive fibers. Hightower, however, teaches that when dealing with similar structures, it is well known to embed functional components in this manner (Figures 1, 11; Detail 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the magnets in the manner shown by Hightower, so as to securely place the magnets in place. Embedding capsules within fibers would allow for the magnets to be contained, providing added protection
In regards to Claims 7 and 8, Hightower teaches hollow conductive fibers comprising a conductive interior cavity, where the magnets would be placed in the interior cavity, and a conductive wire coiled around the interior cavity (Figure 11).
Claim(s) 9-12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Wang et al (11194396).
In regards to Claim 9, while Efrati essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the weave comprises a three-dimensional structure with a plurality of layers, wherein the conductive fibers are spaced at minimum distances from each other both horizontally, within each layer, and vertically, between different layers, all of which Wang teaches (Column 12, line 60 - Column 13, line 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided multiple layers as taught, so as to enable more realistic sensations of movement. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the benefits, and known to provide layers as taught.
In regards to Claim 10, Wang teaches a magnetic insulator in between one or more of the layers (dielectric fabric layer).
In regards to Claims 11 and 18, Wang teaches selective transmittal of electric current among different vertical layers which could create a push-and-pull sensation along a depth of the active textile (Column 13, lines 9-30).
In regards to Claims 12 and 19, Wang teaches selective transmittal of electric current along an extent of a conductive fiber within a particular layer which could generate a touch sensation along an extent of the active textile in a continuous vector (Column 13, lines 9-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Hu et al (20220056762) Figures, Fukuhara (20180258562) Figures, and Maalouf et al (10055949) Figures teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights