DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16, 2026 has been entered.
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on January 16, 2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are pending. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn. A complete action on the merits of claims 8-9 and 11-14 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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “PBM stimulation”. However, the acronym should be recited inside parentheses followed by corresponding name. Similarly, claim 11 recites “PPG sensor, a fNIRS sensor or an MEG sensor” and claim 12 recites “EEG signals, EKG signals, ECG signals or EMG signals”. These acronyms should be recited inside parentheses followed by its corresponding terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallios et al. (hereinafter ‘Wallios’ U.S. PGPub. No. 2017/0367650), and further in view of Dauguet and Dutheil (hereinafter ‘Dauguet’, FR 3 058 628).
In regards to independent claim 8 and claims 9, 11-12, 14, Wallios discloses a wearable device (device 1 in Fig. 1) for sending and receiving biosignals to and from a user comprising:
at least two anchors (elastic piece 5 being intended to be attached to said brace 6 in order to ensure the tensioning of the corresponding flexible guide 3), with each anchor having a mechanism to allow it to be of adjustable length ([0087] “a manual pulling force on the free end of the elastic piece 5 causes the elastic piece to slide through said through-opening 7, and thus enables adjustment by increasing the tension, and when the manual force is no longer applied”);
at least two semi-flexible bands each with a first end and a second end (semi-rigid brace 6 intended to extend at least locally under the ear, [0036]), wherein at least one of the first end and the second end of each of the semi-flexible bands is connected to at least one anchor (the elastic piece 5 slides through opening 7 which are disposed along the upper edge of the brace 6), wherein the at least two semi-flexible bands follow the contours of the subject’s body such that an opening is formed between the at least two semi-flexible bands (the braces 6 extend under the ears and provide a space or an opening therebetween);
at least one flexible membrane spanning a portion of the user’s scalp (guide 3 are configured to span across the scalp of the wearer as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the at least one flexible membrane is connected to at least two semi-flexible bands (the flexible guide 3 is attached to the brace 6 via the elastic pieces 5, [0082]);
at least one biosensor (sensor support 41,42, sensor support comprises sensors as shown in Figs. 1-9) disposed on the at least one flexible membrane or one or more of the at least two anchors (sensor support 41,42 are attached and rigidly connected to said flexible guide 3, the sensor support comprises sensors; the sensors can be for measuring signals by electroencephalograpy and/or optical detectors and transmitters for measuring signals by near-infrared spectroscopy; [0029], [0061], [0080], [0095]-[0096], [0111], thus meeting claims 9, 11-12); and
wherein correct placement of the anchors and correct adjustment of the anchors and semi-flexible bands allows the wearable device to adapt to different body size and thereby places the at least one biosensor on a targeted area of the user’s body ([0083]-[0089]: the flexible guides 3 and the elastic piece 5 ensures pre-adjustment of the sensor positions and continuous adjustment. In other words, given that the flexible guide 3 and the elastic piece 5 are adjustable in real-time, it is capable of being adapted to different head size as the limitation does not specifically define the dimensional range which the wearable device is intended for).
However, Wallios does not disclose at least one biostimulator, the biostimulator being PBM stimulation.
Dauguet teaches a device for measuring and/or stimulating brain activity, preferably EEG, comprising means for transmitting and/or detecting physiological signals produced by the brain of an individual (abstract). Specifically, Dauguet teaches providing a light source of the “near infrared laser” type or a light-emitting diode which can be used for brain photon stimulation or photoneuromodulation ([0007]; note that monitoring photoneuromodulation inherently creates feedback loop since the monitored EEG activity is based upon the altered individual’s brain activity as a result of stimulation, thus meeting claim 14). Dauguet further discloses providing at least one transmitter (at least one radiation source, for example, an LED light-emitting diode) for cerebral stimulation (pg. 10, lns. 13-17). Given that Dauguet specifically discloses incorporating sensor/electrodes and transmitter/stimulators (12 in Fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least two anchors which already hold electrodes of Wallio and provide additional light source or a light-emitting diode for stimulating a cerebral activity. A device combing neural monitoring to determine various states in an individual including state of consciousness, wakefulness, sleep stage, degree of cognitive engagement, level of stress, etc. and a brain stimulator for neuromodulation to transmit photons and cause photochemical reactions in the neurons of the individual and alter the brain activity involves routine skilled in the art ([0003]& [0009]).
In regards to claim 9, Wallios/Dauguet combination further discloses wherein the device is configured to place the at least one biosensor and at least one biostimulator on a targeted area on the user’s head (the device 1 as shown in Fig. 1 is positioned on the head of the individual, therefore, the electrodes and the modified light source is disposed on the individual’s head, [0083]).
In regards to claim 13, The examiner notes that the limitation, “configured to be used as” is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. Wallios/Dauguet combination’s device is capable of being used for brain-computer interface when it is connected to a processor configured to process the monitored EEG signals to control various controls of other elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on January 16, 2026, is fully acknowledged.
With respect to the claim objection, it is customary to define acronyms in the claims and requests the applicant to amend the claims to incorporate the definitions/terms in the next submission. The claim objection has been presented in a previous Office action and has not been addressed in this submission. Therefore, the claim objection is reiterated in above Office action.
With respect to claims 8-14, the applicant argues that Wallois reference does not disclose all the limitations as set forth in independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Walliois’ anchor element (5) operates differently from the applicant’s anchor element as shown in Fig. 1 of the specification because Wallios operates to tension a flexible guide element and thus does not disclose that the anchor element is of adjustable length as required in independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wallios is clear that the anchor (the elastic piece 5 in Fig. 1) wraps around the band (6) and slides through a through-opening (7) to adjust the tension of the guide (3). The distance of the elastic piece 5 that is from the portion in which the elastic piece 5 attaches to the guide (3) to the portion of the elastic piece 5 that is slidable through the through-opening (7) of the band (6) is adjustable as the distance will decrease as more tension is applied ([0087]). Applicant therefore does not define the mechanism that differentiates from the mechanism of Wallios and the rejection is tenable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHWA KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794 3/12/2026