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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a garment, classified in A61B 5/6805.
II. Claims 13-20, drawn to a method for processing health status data, classified in A61B 5/0205.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Shirley Fung on Oct. 7, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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: Fig. 7 element “Fabric 706”; 908 in Fig. 9A. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “912” has been used to designate both “other” and “blues wireless chip” in Fig. 9A. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms “Velcro” in ¶[0044]; “Bluetooth” in ¶[0050] and [0118]; “Arduino” in ¶[0070] and [0083], “Wi-Fi” in ¶[0117]-[0118] which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “electric sensing device comprises” should be changed to --electric sensing device further comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the garment includes” should be changed to --wherein the garment further includes--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “closure mechanism in the main section to facilitate insertion and removal of the electronic sensing device” in claim 1. Claim 6 does not invoke 112(f) as it provides structure for the closure mechanism.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For “closure mechanism”, in ¶[0044] the specification discloses zipper closure, Velcro, and any equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 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.
The term “stretchable” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stretchable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “stretchable” will be interpreted as “elastic”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The following limitation is directed to parts of the claimed device to be in contact with body parts: “the channel positions the at least one further sensor near an armpit area of the wearer”. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to --the channel is configured to position the at least one further sensor near an armpit area of the wearer--.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolae et al. (US 20220117554 A1, published Apr. 21, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Nicolae”) in view of Fu et al. (US 20210298674 A1, published Sept. 30, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Fu”).
Regarding claim 1, Nicolae teaches a garment (Fig. 10 “article of clothing 1004” ¶[0180]), comprising: a pocket to securely hold an electronic sensing device against a skin of a wearer (Fig. 10 “a pocket 1002 for a monitoring device… The pocket 1002 may be adapted for use with a removable and replaceable physiological monitoring device or the like, and may be configured to secure the device in a desired position, e.g., for monitoring during physical activity, while facilitating removal and replacement of the device as needed” ¶[0180]), the pocket including: a main section to hold one or more onboard sensors and electronics of the electronic sensing device (Fig. 10 “pocket 1002 may be structurally configured for receiving a monitoring device therein, e.g., with only a predetermined portion of the monitoring device” ¶[0182]); an opening in the main section to allow one of the one or more onboard sensors to detect skin measurements (Fig. 12 “a sensing region 1006, exposed through an opening (see the opening 1211 in FIG. 12) that provides a physical window for direct physical contact between a monitoring device and a user's body in a manner that facilitates physiological sensing… FIG. 10 shows the pocket 1002 with a monitoring device disposed therein, and the sensing region 1006 exposed through the opening 1211 so that the monitoring device can contact a user's skin in order to capture a physiological signal from a corresponding location on a wearer of the article of clothing 1004.” ¶[0182]); a closure mechanism in the main section to facilitate insertion and removal of the electronic sensing device (Fig. 10 “an access port 1008 for the pocket 1002 may facilitate removal of the monitoring device from, and replacement of the monitoring device to, the pocket 1002. The access port 1008 may be positioned along an edge of the pocket 1002 and may be releasably sealed with a seal such as a zipper, snaps, hook-and-loop fasteners, or the like. In general, the access port 1008 may be shaped and sized to receive the monitoring device” ¶[0185]).
Nicolae does not disclose the pocket further including a channel extending from the main section to position at least one further sensor of the electronic sensing device at a location on the wearer, the at least one further sensor being coupled to the electronics via at least one or more wires.
Fu’s invention relates to the common goal of sensing parameters on the body using garments, and in particular, useful temperature-sensing garments and a method in the field of foot care (¶[0001]). In some variations, the garment may further include at least one housing 840. As shown in FIG. 8, the housing 840 may house an electronic subsystem for receiving data (e.g., from sensor leads) from the temperature sensors, and/or house other various components. The housing 840 may, for example, be arranged on an ankle region of the garment. The garment can include a pocket configured to receive the housing, and channels configured to receive wires extending from the housing to each temperature sensor in the set of temperature sensors. For example, the pocket or pouch can be sewn into a neck or ankle portion (e.g., upper portion) of the temperature-sensing garment during manufacturing. In another example, the garment can include channels sewn along a side of a user's foot when the garment is worn by the user, such that the user may not feel the wires within the garment when the user wears the garment (¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a channel extending from the main section to position at least one further sensor of the electronic sensing device at a location on the wearer, the at least one further sensor being coupled to the electronics via at least one or more wires as taught by Fu in the garment of Nicolae in order to connect the electronic housing to the temperature sensors which are located at different locations.
Regarding claim 2, Nicolae wherein a fabric of the pocket is elastic (“FIG. 14 is a perspective view of the pocket 1202 of FIG. 12 with a monitoring device placed therein. In general, an elastic material of the pocket 1202 may expand in thickness to accommodate the monitoring device” ¶[0192]).
Regarding claim 3, Nicolae teaches wherein the pocket is integrated into an inner side of the garment (Fig. 10 “the access port 1008 is accessible through a first surface on an interior of the article of clothing 1004 when the article of clothing 1004 is in use (e.g., on a wearer)—this configuration is shown for example in FIG. 10. This configuration may allow for a user to conceal the pocket 1002 in situations where inconspicuousness is valued” ¶[0186]).
Regarding claim 4, Nicolae teaches wherein the one or more onboard sensors and the at least one further sensor include sensors for monitoring heart rate (“The physiological monitoring system may monitor one or more of a heart rate” ¶[0007]), blood oxygen saturation (“The sensors may also or instead include pulse oximetry oxygen saturation (SpO2) sensors” ¶[0296]), and core temperature (“The sensors may also or instead measure temperature, which may include skin temperature, body temperature, core temperature, and the like.” ¶[0287]).
Regarding claim 6, Nicolae teaches wherein the closure mechanism includes a zipper closure (Fig. 10 “The access port 1008 may be positioned along an edge of the pocket 1002 and may be releasably sealed with a seal such as a zipper” ¶[0185]).
Regarding claim 9, Nicolae teaches wherein the one or more onboard sensors and the at least one further sensor include an optical heart rate (“the sensors may use PPG. PPG measurements from different sensors and locations in a smart garment or the like can yield insights with respect to blood pressure, heart health, circulatory system condition (e.g., blood vessel stiffness, blood viscosity, and so on), and the like” ¶[0286]; “the PPG signal in the aforementioned example from one sensor may be processed to extract a heart rate, which can be a valuable metric for assessing cardiovascular load” ¶[0271]) and SpO2 sensor (“The sensors may also or instead include pulse oximetry oxygen saturation (SpO2) sensors” ¶[0296]).
Regarding claim 10, Nicolae teaches wherein the electronic sensing device comprises a wireless charging mechanism (“FIG. 18 illustrates a wireless battery 1810 coupled to a physiological monitoring device 1802” ¶[0202]).
In ¶[0205] Nicolae teaches that wireless power transfer circuitry systems and methods are generally known in the art. The details of such circuitry and/or wireless power transfer interfaces vary according to the rate and total amount of power to be transferred, the form factor of the wireless interface, the size and expected distance between transceivers, and so forth. The details of such circuits are not described here. Nicolae does not teach wherein the wireless charging mechanism is inductive charging.
Fu teaches the power source 858 may be rechargeable such as through wireless charging methods (e.g., inductive charging, RF coupling, etc.) (¶[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use inductive charging as taught by Fu in the garment of Nicolae in order to provide a type of charging mechanism for the wireless charging.
Regarding claim 12, Nicolae and Fu teach the garment of claim 1. Nicolae and Fu do not teach wherein the garment includes a further pocket having a further main section, and a further channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a further pocket having a further main section, and a further channel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolae and Fu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Faybishenko et al. (US 20140121487 A1, published May 1, 2014, hereinafter referred to as “Faybishenko”).
Regarding claim 5, Nicolae and Fu teach the garment of claim 1. Nicolae also teaches wherein the electronic sensing device is at least partially enclosed by water-resistant and transparent material (“While the window 1210 may generally provide an opening for direct contact between sensors and a target surface such as the skin, and the foregoing description emphasizes this type of window as useful for photoplethysmography or similar optical sensing, it will be understood that the window may more generally be any arrangement that permits functional engagement between one or more sensors and the target surface. Thus, for example, where the sensors are optical sensors, the opening in the window 1210 may include or be filled with an optically clear material such as a sheet of plastic or the like, or any other material that otherwise fills the window while permitting optical sensing of a surface on one side of the window 1210 by a sensor system on the other side of the window 1210” ¶[0190]; and “FIG. 17 illustrates a physiological monitoring device 1702… The monitoring device 1702 may include a housing 1704 providing a protective enclosure (e.g., waterproof enclosure)” ¶[0200]).
Nicolae and Fu do not disclose the film being both water-resistant and transparent.
Faybishenko’s invention relates to diagnostic systems and methods, which may include a sample collection device and a computing system configured to acquire, transmit, process, analyze, and/or store diagnostic data from the sample collection device (¶[0027]). Transparent tape 88 may be transparent waterproof film, such as OPSITE.RTM. FLEXIFIX.RTM. Transparent Film, disposed over diagnostic test 86 to provide a sufficient seal and/or to allow diagnostic test 86 to be properly viewed, which may allow the user to easily access the diagnostic data associated with the sample produced by patient P without removing diaper 78 from patient P (¶[0050]). The transparent waterproof film may then be disposed on diaper 78 to seal cut-out 84 and provide visual access to sensors 100a-k and controls 102 (¶[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the film both water-resistant and transparent as taught by Faybishenko in the garment of Nicolae and Fu in order to provide a protective enclosure that allows the sensor to see the skin and to allow visual access to the sensors.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolae and Fu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Peterson et al. (US 20140155708 A1, published June 5, 2014, hereinafter referred to as “Peterson”).
Regarding claim 7, Nicolae and Fu teach the garment of claim 1. Although Nicolae teaches sensing core temperature, and Fu teaches a thermistor, Nicolae and Fu do not teach wherein the one or more onboard sensors and the at least one further sensor include a thermistor to sense core temperature.
Peterson’s invention relates to determining physiological parameters of a patient. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems, methods and related apparatus for determining physiological parameters with sensors coupled to audio interfaces of electronic devices (¶[0001]). A clinical thermometer is used to measure human body temperature. Body temperature reflects relative health, and a significantly elevated or lowered temperature can indicate illness. Conventional electronic clinical thermometers use a thermistor probe to measure temperature at a point that best approximates core body temperature, typically the mouth, armpit or rectum, and display the result with a resolution of typically 0.1 degrees. The accuracy of these devices is usually less, typically +/-0.2 degrees (¶[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in thee art at the time of filing to include a thermistor to sense core temperature as taught by Peterson in the garment of Nicolae and Fu since it is a common way to measure core temperature.
Regarding claim 11, Nicolae and Fu teach the garment of claim 1. Although Nicolae teaches “some measurements such as temperature may be measured anywhere, but may preferably be measured at a single location in order to avoid certain calibration issues that might otherwise arise through arbitrary placement” in ¶[0250], Nicolae and Fu do not teach wherein the channel positions the at least one further sensor near an armpit area of the wearer.
Peterson teaches that conventional electronic clinical thermometers use a thermistor probe to measure temperature at a point that best approximates core body temperature, typically the mouth, armpit or rectum, and display the result with a resolution of typically 0.1 degrees. The accuracy of these devices is usually less, typically +/-0.2 degrees (¶[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to position the sensor near an armpit area of the wearer as taught by Peterson in the garment of Nicolae and Fu since the armpit is capable of approximating core temperature accurately.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolae and Fu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yao et al. (US 20210341406 A1, published Nov. 4, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Yao”).
Regarding claim 8, Nicolae and Fu teach the garment of claim 1. Nicolae and Fu do not teach wherein the one or more onboard sensors and the at least one further sensor include a moisture sensor to sense hydration.
Yao’s invention relates to sensors. Humidity sensors can play important roles in wearable devices for monitoring body position, respiration, hydration, and wound healing. Skin hydration levels can be indicative of various health and disease states (¶[0004]). Skin hydration leads to RH change close to the skin surface, thus a moisture sensor can also monitor the hydration state. The e-PN-based sensor could detect local RH differences at (i) different body locations (FIG. 14B) and (ii) different body states (FIG. 14C) (¶[0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a moisture sensor to sense hydration as taught by Yao in the garment of Nicolae and Fu in order to monitor for various health and disease states.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gheneva et al. (US 9144256 B2) – pocket for insertion and removal of electronic device;
Ding et al. (US 20160038083 A1) – integrated wearable sensors;
Hepworth (WO 2021009488 A1) – biosensing garment with removable panel;
Lynch (US 20230222302 A1) – wearable sensors with pocket for arranging the device and sensing the skin; allowing removable electronics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
