DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 10/12/2025. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 6 and 10-13 are pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
“retention means” is described as being an adhesive support as described in paragraph [0077] of the Instant Applications PG Pub US20190313932A1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US 20150257674 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Jordan”) in view of US 20140081369 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sosa”).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan, an EEG headgear device, teaches a system for detecting electroencephalographic signals (Figure 1) comprising:
A cup shaped electrode for transmission of the detected signal (paragraphs [0093], [0100]-[0105]);
a conduction and fixation system of said cup-shaped electrode configured to be interposed between the electrode and the scalp of a patient (uses hydrogel to improve electrical conductivity; paragraph [0104]); and
wherein said conduction and fixation system is constituted of a single hydrogel (paragraph [0104]), and
wherein said single hydrogel is shaped to be received within the cup-shaped housing (the hydrogel is placed in the lower portion of an electrode (thus would become shaped like a drop); paragraphs [0093], [0100]-[0105]; Figures 1-5); but does not explicitly teach a blister pack containing one or more hydrogel drops and wherein said conduction and fixation system is constituted of a single hydrogel drop provided in a dose amount sufficient to conduct the signal and having an outer surface sufficient for adhering to the scalp of the patient, the single hydrogel drop having a density sufficient to define a finite element of predetermined shape that can be handled individually to be positioned in the cup-shaped electrode and removed from the scalp of the patient, and wherein the density of the single hydrogel drop is further sufficient to cause the outer surface of the single hydrogel drop to be adaptable to a contour of the scalp of the patient.
However, Sosa, an electrode based head gear device, teaches a blister pack containing one or more hydrogel drops and the hydrogel drop being able to be applied to an electrode (paragraph [0025]) and wherein said conduction and fixation system is constituted of a single hydrogel drop provided in a dose amount sufficient to conduct the signal and having an outer surface sufficient for adhering to the scalp of the patient, the single hydrogel drop having a density sufficient to define a finite element of predetermined shape that can be handled individually to be positioned in the cup-shaped electrode and removed from the scalp of the patient, and wherein the density of the single hydrogel drop is further sufficient to cause the outer surface of the single hydrogel drop to be adaptable to a contour of the scalp of the patient (paragraphs [0092], [0107]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jordan, to have a blister pack of hydrogels drops, because doing so provides a packaging having a preset amount of hydrogel in each bubble of the blister pack and allows for easy access when supplying the hydrogel to the electrode.
Regarding claim 4, Jordan, in view of Sosa, teaches wherein the blister pack has a plurality of bubbles each containing one of the hydrogel drops (paragraph [0025]; as taught by Sosa).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan, in view of Sosa, teaches a method of detecting encephalographic signals (paragraphs [0006]-[0013]; as taught by Jordan), said method comprising:
Providing a system for detecting electroencephalographic signals according to claim 1 (as discussed in claim 1 rejection discussed above); and
Fixing the cup shaped electrode to the scalp of a patient to transmit detected electrical signals (paragraphs [0006]-[0013]; Figures 1-3; as taught by Jordan),
Wherein said fixing includes the following steps:
Positioning the drop/table element in contact with said electrode said single hydrogel drop within said cup shaped housing (paragraphs [0102]-[0105]; Figures 1-3; as taught by Jordan; paragraph [0025]; as taught by Sosa);
Bonding said electrode to the scalp of the patient by way of said single hydrogel drop (paragraphs [0102]-[0105]; Figures 1-3); and
Detecting electroencephalographic signals through said single hydrogel drop (paragraphs [0006]-[0013]; Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Jordan, in view of Sosa, wherein step (a) further comprises collecting said one of the hydrogel drops from the blister pack (is a cup electrode; paragraph [0013]; as taught in Jordan; gel held in blister pack pockets and transferred onto individual electrodes; paragraph [0025]; as taught by Sosa).
Regarding claim 13, Jordan, in view of Sosa, teaches the blister pack has a plurality of blister bubbles each containing one of the one or more hydrogel drops (paragraph [0025]; as taught by Sosa).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan, in view of Sosa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150238106 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lappalainen”).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan, in view of Sosa, teaches a headgear to keep the electrodes in position on the scalp of the patient (headgear 10; paragraphs [0094]-[0100]; as taught by Jordan); but does not explicitly teach a retention means having an adhesive support.
However, Lappalainen, an EEG device, teaches the retention means are composed of an adhesive support (paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jordan, in view of Sosa, to have adhesive support, as taught by Lappalainen, because doing so provides additional support to keep the electrodes in a fixed position.
Regarding claim 12, Jordan teaches step (b) including a step of retaining said electrode in position on the scalp using a retention means; but does not explicitly teach the retention means are composed of an adhesive support.
However, Lappalainen, an EEG device, teaches the retention means are composed of an adhesive support (paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Jordan, to have adhesive support, as taught by Lappalainen, because doing so provides additional support to keep the retention means in a fixed position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/12/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/12/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Sosa does not teach "the single hydrogel drop having a density sufficient to define a finite element of predetermined shape that can be handled individually". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sosa teaches hydrogels being individually packed in a blister pack that each of these hydrogels can be used for an electrode. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation meets the limitation of “being handled”. As such Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights