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 . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 02/26/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 2, as well as the cancellation of claims 15 and 17.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2005/0203366 (“Donoghue”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0299480 (“Hill”), US Patent Application Publication 2014/0194944 (“Romanelli”), US Patent Application Publication 2016/0113540 (“Chi”), and US Patent Application Publication 2008/0159365 (“Dubocanin”).
Regarding claim 1, Donoghue teaches [a] system comprising: one or more electroencephalography (EEG) sensor nodes (Fig. 1, remote brain implant 200, ¶¶s 0073, 0013) in a sensor network (Fig. 1, which includes one or more sensors 150 - ¶ 0073) configured to detect electrical signals indicating activity of a brain of a subject and to transmit signal information relating to the detected electrical signals (¶ 0073 - detecting signals and transmitting them to central processing module 300), …; a centralized command control node (CCN) in the sensor network in communication with the one or more EEG sensor nodes and configured to receive the transmitted signal information from the one or more EEG sensor nodes and to perform a processing technique on the received information resulting in processed signal data (Fig. 1, central processing module 300, ¶¶s 0073 and 0074 (wireless)); and at least two other non-EEG sensor nodes connected in the sensor network, in communication with the CCN, and configured to detect other signals (Fig. 1, sensors 150 for detecting heart rate, respiration, etc. - ¶ 0073); … .
Donoghue does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the sensor network is adapted to allow plug-and-play reconfiguration of the one or more EEG sensor nodes while deployed, wherein said sensor nodes comprise plug-and-play modules. Donoghue does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the at least two other non-EEG sensor nodes and the one or more EEG sensor nodes are configured to transmit data among themselves (although Fig. 1 does show arrows going from the processing module 300 to each of the sensor nodes).
Hill teaches a variety of biomedical sensors being part of a sensor network (Figs. 1 and 5, Abstract), with the nodes of the network able to transmit data among themselves and process data from other nodes (¶ 0055, specialist nodes 301, 302, and 304 providing data processing services for adjacent nodes). The sensor network is able to be reconfigured in a plug-and-play manner while deployed, the sensors/devices each being considered plug-and-play modules (¶¶s 0024, 0027, 0028, 0058, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the network of Donoghue like the one of Hill, the sensor nodes (including both EEG and non-EEG nodes) able to communicate with each other and some nodes able to process data from other nodes (including data from EEG nodes), for the purpose of more efficiently handling a larger number of sensors (Hill: ¶ 0055, reducing redundant functions, coordinating local sensors, enabling feedback loops, conserving power by offloading processing, etc.). It would have been obvious to make the network plug-and-play and reconfigurable, as in Hill, for the purpose of increasing resiliency of the network (Hill: ¶¶s 0024, 0027, 0028, 0058, etc., self-healing, transitioning between diagnosis and therapy, etc.).
Donoghue-Hill does not appear to explicitly teach each EEG sensor node embodying an analog front end (AFE) circuit (although ¶¶s 0045, 0090 of Donoghue do describe performing preprocessing on the detected signals, including filtering and amplifying them).
Romanelli teaches that each electrode of a system for monitoring brain bioelectric signals has an analog front end circuit (¶ 0063, Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an analog front end circuit with each sensor node in Donoghue-Hill, as in Romanelli, for the purpose of enabling more fine-tuned preprocessing of the nodes (also see Romanelli: ¶ 0065).
Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli is silent as to wherein the one or more EEG sensor nodes are configured to detect the electrical signals without a driven right leg (DRL) circuit in the sensor network.
Chi is cited as a supplementary teaching to show that such a sensor system can detect electrical signals without a driven right leg (DRL) circuit in the network (Fig. 1, as compared to Fig. 2 and ¶ 0018. ¶¶s 0014-0017 suggest that multiple sense electrodes 101 may be used in this configuration).
Dubocanin further describes improving signal quality (by biasing a subject to a reference potential) using a non-DRL circuit method (¶ 0040, omitting the DRL circuit), thereby retaining signal fidelity and accuracy (¶¶s 0004, 0030) while also reducing cost and complexity associated with DRL circuits (¶¶s 0004, 0030, 0039, 0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect signals in Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli without a DRL circuit in the sensor network, as taught by Chi and Dubocanin, for the purpose of reducing circuit cost and system complexity by requiring fewer components (Dubocanin: ¶¶s 0004, 0030, and 0040).
Regarding claim 2, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the at least two other non-EEG sensor nodes are configured to transmit information relating to the detected other signals to the CCN (Fig. 1, sensors 150 for detecting heart rate, respiration, etc. - ¶ 0073).
Regarding claim 5, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the other signals are associated with physiological data of the subject (¶ 0073).
Regarding claim 7, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the CCN is wirelessly in communication with the one or more EEG sensor nodes, the at least two other non-EEG sensor nodes, or both (¶ 0074).
Regarding claim 8, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein the one or more EEG sensor nodes are further configured to locally perform a processing technique on the detected electrical signals resulting in processed signal data and to transmit the processed signal data to the CCN (Romanelli teaches that each electrode has an analog front end circuit for preprocessing the signals (¶¶s 0063, 0065, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to perform this preprocessing before transmitting the signals to the CCN of the combination, for the purpose of enabling more fine-tuned preprocessing of the nodes, and for enabling simpler and more universal CCN configurations which only have to work with digital data (also see Romanelli: ¶¶s 0065, 0066)).
Regarding claim 11, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the CCN is further configured to control an aspect of the sensor network and to control an aspect of the one or more EEG sensor nodes (¶ 0073 describes the central processing module 300 as e.g. generating control signals to stimulate the brain (which involves controlling the sensor nodes), and storing data related to detected signals (which involves controlling an aspect of the network - e.g. a data recorder 380)).
Regarding claim 12, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the CCN is further configured to dynamically control the one or more EEG sensor nodes so as to adapt to a changing condition associated with the subject (¶ 0073 describes the central processing module 300 as dynamically controlling a stimulation delivered through the remote brain implant 200 based on changing conditions of the subject - also see ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. The combination further teaches wherein a wireless bridge node (WBN) provides wireless extension of the sensor network to one or more wireless sensor nodes (Hill teaches using wireless receiver and access point units to connect sensors with a monitoring unit (Fig. 1D, Abstract). It would have been obvious to wirelessly connect physiological sensors such as accelerometers or respiration sensors to the sensor network/central processing module 300 of Donoghue, for the purpose of minimally intrusive patient monitoring (Hill: ¶¶s 0006, 0007), and as already contemplated by Donoghue (¶ 0074)).
Regarding claim 14, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue further teaches wherein the sensor network is configured to allow one or more other sensors nodes, other than EEG sensors nodes to be added to or removed from the sensor network (¶ 0073 describes a wide variety of physiological or biological sensors being configurable with the system - also see Hill, which teaches a wide variety of sensors in a reconfigurable mesh network (¶¶s 0024, 0028, 0058, etc.)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0251469 (“Varadan”).
Regarding claim 4, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin further teaches wherein … the at least two other non-EEG sensor nodes are each configured to be worn by the subject (Donoghue: ¶ 0073 suggests that more than one of the sensors 150 is configured to be worn).
Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin does not appear to explicitly teach the one or more EEG sensor nodes configure to be worn by the subject.
Varadan teaches the use of wearable EEG sensors (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0015).
It would have been obvious to use worn EEG sensors in the combination as a mere substitution of parts, and for the purpose of increasing patient safety by not requiring implantation of electrodes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0242501 (“Tran”).
Regarding claim 6, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the other signals are associated with non-physiological data of the subject.
Tran teaches a sensor network including EEG and GPS sensor nodes (Fig. 1A, ¶ 0058).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain another signal containing non-physiological data of the subject, such as GPS data, in the combination, for the purpose of being able to track the ambulatory patterns of the patient for mobility tracking (Tran: ¶ 0058), and for the purpose of being able to locate the patient in case of emergencies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0107501 (“Komanduri”).
Regarding claim 9, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the AFE circuit includes, in order, a first amplifier, a plurality of filters, and a second amplifier.
Komanduri teaches an AFE circuit that includes, in order, a first amplifier, a plurality of filters, and a second amplifier (Fig. 4, ¶ 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the type of AFE circuit taught in Komanduri, in the combination, for the purpose of performing the necessary signal conditioning of the obtained analog signals to enable them to be properly read and displayed for review by a medical professional, with various other configurations also being possible based on design choice (Komanduri: ¶ 0039).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0051946 ("Arne”).
Regarding claim 10, Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Donoghue-Hill-Romanelli-Chi-Dubocanin does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the sensor network is configured according to an inter-integrated circuit (I2C) topology.
Arne teaches the use of an I2C topology in a sensor network having reusable electronic modules (Fig. 2, ¶ 0042, listing a variety of well-known and interchangeable serial interfaces).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an I2C topology in the sensor network of the combination, as a well-known alternative for the bus lines used by the combination (see e.g. ¶ 0060 of Romanelli).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,973,430 (the “reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are generally broader than, and therefore anticipated by, the claims of the reference patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes a general allegation of patentability and does not argue or explain why the cited art does not teach the newly added features. All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
It should be noted that some amendments were made to claim 1 but were not annotated with e.g. strike-through. Applicant should be aware to properly annotate claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791