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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 3rd, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 48, 51, 56, 57, 76-78, and 80 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 5, 38, 42, 48, 51, 56-57, and 76-78 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 3rd, 2025, with respect to the claim objections have been considered. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 3rd, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. However, additional rejections are added.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 3rd, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: “controllable vibrating member configured for vibrating said legs” in claim 30.
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.
The controllable vibrating member is defined, in para. [0134, 0147] of the instant application publication (US 20220313135 A1), as the actuators (Examiner note: see actuators defined above in para. [0015, 0042, 0069, 0136-0137]).
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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is suggested to recite “each actuator of said plurality of controllable actuators”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9, 12, 18, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20160135748 A1) in view of Kesinger (US 20190021665 A1 - previously cited), further in view of Zheng (CN107049307A English Translation – previously cited), and further in view of Van Den Ende (US 20190000338 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses system for measuring electroencephalography (EEG) signals (Abstract, fig. 7), the system comprising: a wearable body (inflatable electroencephalogram measuring device, figs. 5-6) adapted to fit over a scalp (as seen in fig. 6, Abstract), and comprising an inner shell (supporting strips 14, fig. 2, para. [0034]) and an outer shell (housing 30, fig. 5, para. [0034]); a plurality of physically separate sensing systems (measuring electrodes 20, figs. 1-2) mounted on said inner shell of said wearable body (“measuring electrode 20 is disposed on the supporting strips 14”, para. [0030], figs. 1 & 7), each sensing system comprising several electrodes (“brush electrode ... probes”, para. [0030]); a plurality of controllable actuators (chambers 12a of inflatable body 12, “flow inside air bag is designed to be asymmetric”, fig. 4, para. [0031-0032]) mounted on said outer shell of said wearable body (“air bag embedded in a hard case … embedded between the housing 30 and the supporting strips 14”, para. [0034]), for applying force to said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (“directly oppressed”; “pressure … deformation”; “inflated … oppresses and induces the measuring electrode 20 to be in contact”, para. [0029, 0031-0032], 0034).
Lin further discloses that the measuring electrode 20 can be further connected to a printed circuit board (PCB) through a plurality of wires (para. [0033]). Lin does not disclose each sensing system comprising a circuit board and several electrodes.
However, Kesinger directed to a frame having a plurality of electrode hubs 25 having mechanical collapsing actuators, outer member 26b, and electrode members 26c, discloses each sensing system (electrode hub 25, para. [0113]) comprising a circuit board (“26b … circuit board … 26e”, para. [0113], figs. 8 & 11) and several electrodes (“electrode members 26c”, para. [0113], fig. 11). Kesinger further discloses that the at least one circuit 26e can at least include a transmission circuitry to provide a wireless communication system and that the non-inclusion of wires can also provide improved precision and/or accuracy to collected data by decreasing artifacts of the data that can be present when wires are utilized in conducting signals for communication of data from electrodes (para. [0113, 0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin such that each sensing system comprising a circuit board and several electrodes, in view of the teachings of Kesinger, for the obvious advantage of improving the precision and/or accuracy of the collected data by avoiding wires such that artifacts of the data that can be present when wires are utilized in conduction signals for communication of data form electrodes is decreased (Kesinger, para. [0116]).
Lin further discloses an inlet 16 for blowing air into the inflatable body 12 and pressure measuring device, which is designed for controlling the pressure of the air bag (para. [0030-0031]). Lin, as modified by Kesinger hereinabove, does not disclose a controller configured for individually controlling each actuator of said plurality of controllable actuators, or group of actuators of said plurality of controllable actuators, to apply force to respective circuit board and respective electrodes of at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems.
However, Zheng directed to a fully automatic brain electric signal reading helmet discloses a controller (electrode lifting device including a main controller 1-11 installed in the hard shell helmet, para. [0013, 0019, 0043], 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, as seen in fig. 9) configured for individually controlling each actuator (micro-airbag 1-15, para. [0043]) of said plurality of controllable actuators, or group of actuators of said plurality of controllable actuators (“electrode lifting control device used in this invention can automatically control the lifting and lowering of the scalp electrodes”; “controls the micro air compressor to start … micro-airbag is continuously inflated”, para. [0021, 0043-0044], Examiner note: fig. 1 shows a plurality of electrodes/electrode base 1-3 & fig. 8 shows each scalp electrode has a micro airbag 1-15. Therefore, the electrode lifting device controls the inflation of the micro airbags for each scalp electrode), to apply force to respective board and respective electrodes (scalp electrodes 1-8 & pressure sensor 1-16, fig. 8) of at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (“micro scalp electrode … force”; “inflated … impact and pressure”, para. [0040, 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger hereinabove, such that the system further comprises a controller configured for individually controlling each actuator of said plurality of controllable actuators, or group of actuators of said plurality of controllable actuators, to apply force to respective circuit board and respective electrodes of at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems, in view of the teachings of Zheng, for the obvious advantage of providing a fully automated EEG signal reading helmet that enables the automatic positioning, installation, and removal of the scalp electrodes and achieves automatic readings of EEG signals (Zheng, para. [0019]).
Lin, as modified by Kesinger hereinabove, does not disclose a signal processor configured for receiving and processing signals from said plurality of physically separate sensing systems and transmitting control signals to said controller based on said processing.
However, Van Den Ende directed to an electroencephalography (EEG) system comprising electrodes 104 supported by support 102, actuators 106 operatively coupled to the electrodes, and the electrodes having an electrode housing 115 and pins 113, discloses a controller (computer system 108; “adaptive feed-forward compensation/control … to continuously move EEG electrode 104”, para. [0030, 0040]) configured for individually controlling each actuator of said plurality of controllable actuators, or group of actuators of said plurality of controllable actuators (“control … move … associated actuator 106”, para. [0030-0031, 0040, 0050]), to apply force to respective board and respective electrodes (board 115 and pins 113, fig. 4) of at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (actuators 106 configured to provide a force and create movement of its individual electrode 104 (housing 115 and pins 113), para. [0040, 0049-0050]); and a signal processor (processor 108, para. [0030-0031, 0040]) configured for receiving and processing signals from said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (“obtain impedance signal information … 104”, para. [0030-0031, 0040], figs. 7-8) and transmitting control signals to said controller based on said processing (“feedback compensation/control to continuously move … actuator 106”, para. [0030-0031, 0040], figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger and Zheng hereinabove, such that the system further comprises a signal processor configured for receiving and processing signals from said plurality of physically separate sensing systems and transmitting control signals to said controller based on said processing, in view of the teachings of Van Den Ende, for the obvious advantage of improving electrode performance by automatically repositioning electrodes to provide better contact with the user’s skin/scalp by using adaptive feed-forward compensation/control and/or a feed back compensation/control based on the obtained impedance signal information.
Regarding claim 7, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system of claim 6. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said signal processor is configured for determining at least one of: an electrode-tissue impedance, a signal-to-noise ratio, artifacts percentage, a signal quality, and actuating pressure, and to control said force based on said determination.
However, Van Den Ende discloses wherein said signal processor (processor 108, para. [0030-0031, 0040]) is configured for determining at least one of: an electrode-tissue impedance, a signal-to-noise ratio, artifacts percentage, a signal quality, and actuating pressure, and to control said force based on said determination (“signal quality … impedance value”, para. [0053-0054], figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that said signal processor is configured for determining at least one of: an electrode-tissue impedance, a signal-to-noise ratio, artifacts percentage, a signal quality, and actuating pressure, and to control said force based on said determination, in view of the teachings of Van Den Ende, for the obvious advantage of improving electrode performance by automatically repositioning electrodes to provide better contact with the user’s skin/scalp by using adaptive feed-forward compensation/control and/or a feed back compensation/control based on the impedance values/signal quality.
Regarding claim 8, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 6, wherein said force is applied inwardly (“oppresses … effectively contact … head”; “inflatable body can be extended inwardly, outwardly”, para. [0029, 0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 8. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems is flexible and configured to experience a strain once pressed by said force against said scalp.
However, Kesinger discloses wherein at least one electrode (electrode members 26c, para. [0122]) of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (electrode hub 25, para. [0122]) is flexible and configured to experience a strain once pressed by said force against said scalp (“force … against the distal ends 26g of … 26c”, “flexible … move around any hair”, para. [0115, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems is flexible and configured to experience a strain once pressed by said force against said scalp, in view of the teachings of Kesinger, as this would enable and aid the electrode in bending or flexing around hair/objects or to compress in response to a blocking element such that at least some of the electrodes are able to have their distal ends 26g contact the patient's scalp (Kesinger, para. [0122]).
Regarding claim 12, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 6, wherein at least one of said plurality of controllable actuators comprises an inflatable balloon or a pneumatic actuator, applying said force upon inflation thereof (inflatable chambers 12a, fig. 4, “pressure … oppresses”, para. [0029, 0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 6. Lin further discloses that the electrodes can be implemented as brush-electrodes, wet electrodes, or dry electrodes (para. [0030]). Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, wherein at least one of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems comprises a plurality of flexible legs, each having a non-conductive section and a conductive section having a tip in electrical communication with said circuit board, and wherein each conductive section is one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems.
However, Kesinger directed to headgear 3 comprising an array of electrodes functioning as wet or semi-wet electrodes (para. [0049, 0138], fig. 6) discloses wherein at least one of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (electrode hubs 25, para. [0114], figs. 6 & 9-11) comprises a plurality of flexible legs (figs. 9-11, electrode members 26c … flexible, para. [0123]), each having a non-conductive section (27b … non-conductive, para. [0123]) and a conductive section (27a … conductive, para. [0123]) having a tip (electrode members 26c having distal ends 26g, fig. 10, para. [0115]) in electrical communication with said circuit board (circuit 26e, para. [0114]) (“communicatively”, para. [0114-0116]), and wherein each conductive section is one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (“multiple electrode members 26c … at least one electrode at each hub 25”, as seen in figs. 9-11, para. [0118, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that at least one of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems comprises a plurality of flexible legs, each having a non-conductive section and a conductive section having a tip in electrical communication with said circuit board, and wherein each conductive section is one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems, in view of the teachings of Kesinger, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the electrodes implemented as brush, wet, or dry electrodes of Lin for the electrodes comprising the electrode members and outer member including the circuit board of Kesinger in order to improve the precision and/or accuracy of the collected data by avoiding wires such that artifacts of the data that can be present when wires are utilized in conduction signals for communication of data form electrodes is decreased (Kesinger, para. [0116]).
Regarding claim 80, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system of claim 6. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein at least one of said plurality of controllable actuators is selected from the group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, an electric actuator, and a motor.
However, Van Den Ende discloses wherein at least one of said plurality of controllable actuators (actuators 106, fig. 4) is selected from the group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, an electric actuator, and a motor (“piezoelectric vibration actuator”, para. [0049]). Van Den Ende further discloses that each actuator 106 is configured to create movement of its corresponding (individual) electrode 104 and that an actuator housing 117 of actuator 106 is positioned on and attached to a side of electrode 104 that is opposite to the side of electrode 104 having pins 113 thereon (para. [0031, 0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that at least one of said plurality of controllable actuators is selected from the group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, an electric actuator, and a motor, in view of the teachings of Kesinger, as this would aid in automatically moving/adjusting individual electrodes and avoid the problems associated with readjusting the entire dry EEG headset.
Claims 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, and further in view of Mihajlovic (WO 2013038285 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 6. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said actuator is configured to apply said force while establishing rotary motion to at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems.
However, Mihajlovic directed to an EEG system comprising electrodes 110a,b and actuators 174 (fig. 2) discloses wherein said actuator (actuators 174, figure 2) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) apply said force (“exert the required pressure”, page 25 line 30 – page 26 line 15) while establishing rotary motion to at least one electrode of said plurality physically separate sensing systems (“rotational”, page 5 lines 7-10 & page 25 line 30 – page 26 line 15, fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that said actuator is configured to apply said force while establishing rotary motion to at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems, in view of the teachings of Mihajlovic, as this would aid in penetrating the electrodes through hair to improve and achieve proper contact of the electrode with the scalp.
Regarding claim 30, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose the system comprising a controllable vibrating member configured for vibrating said plurality of flexible legs.
However, Mihajlovic directed to an EEG system comprising electrodes 110a,b and actuators 174 (fig. 2) discloses a controllable vibrating member (vibration motor, page 12 lines 6-7 & page 26 lines 1-6) configured for (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) vibrating said plurality of flexible legs (pins 171) (page 12 lines 5-15 & page 26 lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that the system comprises a controllable vibrating member configured for vibrating said plurality of flexible legs, in view of the teachings of Mihajlovic, as this would aid in exerting the required pressure and penetrating the electrodes through hair to improve and achieve proper contact of the electrode with the scalp.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kendall (US 20210077019 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 6. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said force is periodic and is applied to vibrate at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems or generate a hammering effect.
However, Kendall directed to a system comprising a substrate including a plurality of microstructures 112 including an electrode and an actuator configured to apply a force to the substrate (fig. 1, para. [0037, 0223]) discloses wherein said force is periodic (“periodic or repeated force”, para. [0225]) and is applied to vibrate at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems or generate a hammering effect (“actuator … bias and vibrate the substrate”, para. [0225, 0266]). Kendall further discloses the biasing force can assist with penetration, for example by agitating the microstructures which reduces the overall force required to penetrate (para. [0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that said force is periodic and is applied to vibrate at least one electrode of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems or generate a hammering effect, in view of the teachings of Kendall, as this would aid in reducing the overall force required for the electrodes to penetrate through the hair (para. [0225]).
Claims 20 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20170112444 A1 – previously cited) (herein Lin 444).
Regarding claim 20, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18 and the plurality of flexible legs (Kesinger, figs. 9-11, electrode members 26c … flexible, para. [0123], see claim 18). Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said circuit board and said plurality of flexible legs are detachable from each other.
However, Lin 444 directed to a bio-signal sensor including a dry electrode having a plurality of probes and having a functional circuit 112 (Abstract, para. [0017]) discloses wherein said circuit board (housing 111 having functional circuit 112, para. [0017]) and said plurality of legs (dry electrode 10 having base 102 and plurality of probes 101, para. [0016]) are detachable from each other (base 102 is detachably received in the … the housing 111, para. [0017]). Lin 444 further discloses kits having different functional circuits can be replaceable disposed between the dry electrode and the bio-signal measurement device so as to provide bio-signal sensors having different functions (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that said circuit board and said plurality of flexible legs are detachable from each other, in view of the teachings of Lin 444, as this would aid in providing bio-signal sensors having different functions, to meet different application requirements and generating sensitive and accurate bio-signals and/or the bio-information (Lin 444, para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 36, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18 and the plurality of flexible legs (Kesinger, figs. 9-11, electrode members 26c … flexible, para. [0123], see claim 18). Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said plurality of flexible legs is arranged on a base of a sensing system body, wherein said at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems comprises a shaft and a housing mounted on said shaft and being configured to receive said sensing system body, and wherein said housing comprises a rigid wall for holding said sensing system body and a flexible membrane connecting said rigid wall with said shaft in a manner that allows said housing to assume a plurality of different orientations with respect to said shaft.
However, Lin 444 directed to a bio-signal sensor including a dry electrode having a plurality of probes and having a functional circuit 112 (Abstract, para. [0017]) discloses wherein said plurality of legs (plurality of probes 201, fig. 2A) is arranged on a base (base 202, fig. 2A) of a sensing system body (as seen in fig. 2A, para. [0033]), wherein said at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems (bio-signal sensor 2, figure 2A) comprises a shaft (rotating shaft 214a, figure 2A) and a housing (housing 211, figure 2A) mounted on said shaft (as seen in figure 2A) and being configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive said sensing system body (receiving space 211a, para. [0033]), and wherein said housing (housing 211 having protruding ring 211b, para. [0033]) comprises a rigid wall for holding said sensing system body (unlabeled but as seen in figure 2A) and a flexible membrane (unlabeled but as seen in figure 2A) connecting said rigid wall (unlabeled but as seen in figure 2A) with said shaft (214a, figure 2A) in a manner that allows said housing to assume a plurality of different orientations with respect to said shaft (“rotate”; “swing”; “multi-axially”, para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that said plurality of flexible legs is arranged on a base of a sensing system body, said at least one sensing system of said plurality of physically separate sensing systems comprises a shaft and a housing mounted on said shaft and being configured to receive said sensing system body, and said housing comprises a rigid wall for holding said sensing system body and a flexible membrane connecting said rigid wall with said shaft in a manner that allows said housing to assume a plurality of different orientations with respect to said shaft, in view of the teachings of Lin 444, as this would aid in adjusting the position of the bio-signal sensor multi-axially according to the three-dimensional shape of the measured portion (Lin 444, para. [0033]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Parvizi (US 20170281036 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein at least one of said flexible legs has a helical shape.
However, Parvizi directed to electrode carrier system including one or more electrode assemblies having flexible electrode bodies/tubular members (para. [0019]) discloses wherein at least one of said flexible legs (tubular members 92, para. [0077]) has a helical shape (“helical”, para. [0028, 0077], figure 8). Parvizi further discloses the tubular members may be configured in a helical shape so that they may penetrate hair to a patient's scalp by rotating the electrode assembly around a vertical axis (para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that at least one of said flexible legs has a helical shape, in view of the teachings of Parvizi, as this would aid in penetrating hair to a patient’s scalp.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kitazoe (US 20210386350 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 26, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, wherein a conductive section of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs is polymeric.
However, Kitazoe directed to a biomedical electrode, biomedical sensor, and a biomedical signal measurement system discloses wherein a conductive section (conductive resin layer 30, para. [0053]) of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs (pillar portions 20, “flexibility”, para. [0030, 0168]) is polymeric (conductive resin layer including a conductive filler … conductive polymer, para. [0053-0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that a conductive section of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs is polymeric, in view of the teachings of Kitazoe, as this would aid in improving transmission performance of a bioelectric signal and the durability of the conductive resin layer for the deformation of the pillar portion (Kitazoe, para. [0056])
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shakour (US 20190328261 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 28, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein a conductive section of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs comprises a bundle of conductive bristles.
However, Shakour directed to electrodes for contact with a body discloses wherein a conductive section of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs (electrode cluster 30, figure 3, “flexible”, para. [0072, 0087]) comprises a bundle of conductive bristles (“bristle”, “cluster”, para. [0072, 0088]) (see also figures 16-18 & para. [0140])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that a conductive section of at least one of said plurality of flexible legs comprises a bundle of conductive bristles, in view of the teachings of Shakour, as this would aid in attaining contact between the electrode and the skin in hair-covered regions without shaving the hair (Shakour, para. [0057-0058]).
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Williams (US 20100130844 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 18. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, does not disclose wherein at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs comprises a hydrophobic zone at an upper part of said leg and a hydrophilic zone at a lower part of said leg.
However, Williams directed to a thin-film microelectrode array discloses wherein at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs (spokes 32a-32f, para. [0025], figures 5-6, “flexible”, Abstract) comprises a hydrophobic zone at an upper part of said leg (upper surface 34 … hydrophobic, para. [0026], figure 6) and a hydrophilic zone at a lower part of said leg (lower surface 40 … hydrophilic, para. [0026], figure 6). Williams further discloses that as a result, lower surface 40 of second layer 28 is drawn to and maintains contact with surface 12 of brain 14 as microelectrode array 10 is unfurled from the retracted position, FIG. 3, to the expanded configuration, FIGS. 1-2 and 4 (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, and Van Den Ende hereinabove, such that at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs comprises a hydrophobic zone at an upper part of said leg and a hydrophilic zone at a lower part of said leg, in view of the teachings of Williams, as this would aid in drawing and maintaining the pins/electrodes in contact with the surface of the patient’s head (Williams, para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 34, Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, Van Den Ende, and Williams hereinabove, discloses the system according to claim 32. Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, Van Den Ende, and Williams hereinabove, does not disclose wherein said at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs comprises an intermediate zone between said hydrophobic zone and said hydrophilic zone, said intermediate zone being less hydrophobic than said hydrophobic zone, and less hydrophilic than said hydrophilic zone.
However, Williams directed to a thin-film microelectrode array discloses wherein said at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs comprises an intermediate zone (lower surface 38 of first layer 26 and upper surface 36 of second layer 28, para. [0023], “flexible”, Abstract) between said hydrophobic zone (upper surface 34 … hydrophobic, para. [0026], as seen in figure 6) and said hydrophilic zone (lower surface 34 … hydrophilic, para. [0026], as seen in figure 6), said intermediate zone being less hydrophobic than said hydrophobic zone, and less hydrophilic than said hydrophilic zone (para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin, as modified by Kesinger, Zheng, Van Den Ende, and Williams hereinabove, such that said at least one leg of said plurality of flexible legs comprises an intermediate zone between said hydrophobic zone and said hydrophilic zone, said intermediate zone being less hydrophobic than said hydrophobic zone, and less hydrophilic than said hydrophilic zone, in view of the teachings of Williams, as this would aid in drawing and maintaining the pins/electrodes in contact with the surface of the patient’s head (Williams, para. [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791