DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 07/02/2025 have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 04/19/2022, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-7 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 13 it appears that “card, extend” should read “card, and extend”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “relatively long” and “relatively short” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear if the interconnects are required to be a particular length that qualify as “relatively long/short” or if the limitation is meant to be a comparison between the interconnects and convey that some are longer/shorter than others. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as intending to convey that some of the interconnects are longer/shorter than other interconnects.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaliki US Patent Number US 8591599 B1 hereinafter Kaliki and further in view of Facteau US Patent Number US 10973452 B2 hereinafter Facteau.
Regarding claim 1, Kaliki teaches a muscle potential measurement device (Abstract) comprising:
a measurement card including a plurality of interconnects on parts of which pads are formed respectively (Fig. 2: references 11 and 22; Col 2 lines 28-42 and Col 3 line 29 – Col 4 line 8: the electrode legs are considered the measurement card, the interconnects are the electrically conductive paths, and the pads are the attachment areas which are in electrical communication with the electrically conductive paths);
a plurality of electrodes that are connected respectively to the pads of some of the interconnects (Fig. 2 reference 14; Col 2 lines 28-42 and Col 3 line 52- Col 4 line 8: a plurality of electrode contacts connected to respective conductive paths. Different numbers of electrode contacts may be utilized); and
a processing circuit (Col 5 line 37- Col 6 line 4) that is detachably connected to the measurement card to be in communication with the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 3, 5; Col 6 lines 29-47: the signal processing circuitry may be placed on a detachable printed circuit board) and that is configured to receive, from the electrodes, measurement signals for measuring a potential that occurs in a subject of measurement with which one ends of the electrodes make contact (Col 7 lines 47-55: the electrodes receive signals from the user’s muscles which are processed to produce sophisticated movements; Col 5 lines 6-30: the processing circuitry may perform various processes on the received signals),
each of the electrodes includes: a proximal end that is connected to the pad of the respective interconnect (Fig. 2 references 14 and 22; Col 3 line 29 – Col 4 line 8: the electrode contacts are placed in the attachment areas, thus the part of the electrode which makes contact with the attachment area, or “pad” is considered the proximal end)
Kaliki at least suggests the device further comprising: wherein
the interconnects are arranged in parallel in a direction intersecting with a detachment direction of the processing circuit from the measurement card, extend from one end of the measurement card detachable to the processing circuit, and have the pads on tips thereof (Col 3 lines 29-51 describe how the legs contain electrically conductive paths to connect the electrode contacts to the signal processing unit. However, this embodiment of Kaliki does not explicitly illustrate the electrically conductive paths or illustrate them as being arranged in a parallel direction intersecting with the detachment direction and extending from one end of the measurement card to the pads on the tips thereof. Fig. 10a-b references 412p and 454 and Col 8 line 61 – Col 10 line 13 illustrate and describe a separate embodiment of Kaliki which explicitly illustrates conductive pathways arranged in parallel and extending from one end of the card and having pads on the tips thereof),
the pads of adjacent interconnects of the interconnects are positioned at different distances from the one end of the measurement card (Col 3 lines 29-51 describe how the legs contain electrically conductive paths to connect the electrode contacts to the signal processing unit. However, this embodiment of Kaliki does not explicitly describe the arrangement of the interconnects. Fig. 10a-b references 412p and 454 and Col 8 line 61 – Col 10 line 13 illustrate and describe a separate embodiment of Kaliki which explicitly illustrates that adjacent conductive pathways 412p have interconnects at different distances from one end of the measurement card),
the interconnects include relatively long interconnects and relatively short interconnects that are alternately arranged in parallel in the direction (Col 3 lines 29-51 describe how the legs contain electrically conductive paths to connect the electrode contacts to the signal processing unit. However, this embodiment of Kaliki does not explicitly describe the arrangement or lengths of the interconnects. Fig. 10a-b references 412p and 454 and Col 8 line 61 – Col 10 line 13 illustrate and describe a separate embodiment of Kaliki which explicitly illustrates that adjacent conductive pathways 412p include relatively long and short conductive pathways that are arranged in parallel),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the conductive pathway configuration of the embodiment of Fig. 10a-b of Kaliki into the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Kaliki because the embodiment of Fig. 2 does not provide a particular configuration of the conductive pathways and the embodiment of Fig. 10a-b illustrates a suitable arrangement for these pathways and thus the implementation of the configuration of conductive pathways of Fig. 10a-b into the leg assembly of Fig. 2 is a mere substitution of one known element for another with no surprising technical effect. It is further noted that while Fig. 10a-b illustrates the conductive pathways being arranged from longest to shortest, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the conductive pathways in an “alternating” pattern of length because such a rearranging constitutes nothing more than a mere rearrangement of parts and produces no surprising technical effect.
Kaliki fails to further teach or suggest the device wherein the electrodes include a plane portion having a contact surface configured to make contact with a skin and having a larger diameter than a diameter of the proximal end
Facteau teaches a physiological data acquirer on the body of a mammal with the electrodes exposed to the body; activating a data acquisition mode of operation of the physiological data acquirer, acquiring physiological data from the user when in said data acquisition mode, and extracting the acquired data using a data extraction device (Abstract). Thus, Facteau falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Facteau teaches a physiological data acquirer with a flexible bandage like housing. The device may include snap-button connectors adapted to receive off-the-shelf electrodes which attach in snap-fit manner to the snap-button connectors (Col 4 lines 10-38). The electrodes appear to have a contact surface with a larger diameter than the proximal end with the snap-button connector (Fig. 1C references 24 and 26 and Fig. 5 refences 40 and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the snap-button electrodes of Facteau into the device of Kaliki because Kaliki discloses that the surface electrodes may take any shape and be arrangement in any attachment configuration (Kaliki: Col 4 lines 43-57) thus the incorporation of the electrode types from Facteau into Kaliki is a simple substitution of one known element for another with no surprising technical effect.
Regarding claim 2, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 1. Modified Kaliki further discloses the device wherein the measurement card includes a card substrate that has the interconnects (Col 2 lines 28-42: the pathways may include a layer deposited onto a substrate or a printed circuit board); and an insulating sheet that is laminated on the card substrate and that covers the interconnects (Col 11 lines 3-27: the inner encasement layer covers the legs except for the apertures for electrode contact. The layered construction is considered sufficient to anticipate the claimed “laminated” construction of the sensor; Col 2 lines 43-55: the encasement may be made of silicone which is an insulating material).
Regarding claim 3, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 2. Modified Kaliki further discloses the device wherein the insulating sheet has openings that are formed in positions corresponding to the pads of the interconnects (Col 2 lines 28-42: opening in the encasement).
Regarding claim 4, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 3. Modified Kaliki further discloses the device wherein the electrodes are connected to the pads of some of the interconnects via the openings of the insulating sheet (Col 2 lines 28-42: the encasement, or insulating sheet comprises holes for the electrodes; Fig. 2 references 22 and 14: the electrodes are attached to the pads and thus the holes in the encasement must line up with these pads; Fig. 2 reference 14; Col 3 line 52- Col 4 line 8: a plurality of electrode contacts connected to respective conductive paths. Different numbers of electrode contacts may be utilized and thus not all of the pads may have electrodes attached).
Regarding claim 6, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 1. Modified Kaliki further discloses the device wherein the electrodes are connected to the pads of some of the interconnects with a conductive adhesive that is applied to the pads (Col 4 lines 43-57: the electrode contacts may be attached with conductive adhesive; It is noted that the snap-button type electrodes of Facteau incorporated into Modified Kaliki are not particularly limited to a “dry” attachment and a conductive adhesive such as it described by Kaliki may further be utilized to ensure a strong electrical and physical attachment. Fig. 2 reference 14; Col 3 line 52- Col 4 line 8: a plurality of electrode contacts connected to respective conductive paths. Different numbers of electrode contacts may be utilized and thus not all of the pads may have an electrode attached).
Regarding claim 7, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 1. Modified Kaliki further discloses the device further comprising a connector that includes terminals that are detachably connected to the respective interconnects and that connects the measurement card and the processing circuit (Col 5 lines 6-30: the connectors for connecting the leg to the processing circuitry; Fig. 3 illustrates that the legs are connectable thus the connection terminals within the connectors are detachably connected to the interconnects of the leg, or measurement card.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaliki US Patent Number US 8591599 B1 hereinafter Kaliki in view of Facteau US Patent Number US 10973452 B2 hereinafter Facteau as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Schaefer US Patent Number US 5255677 A hereinafter Schaefer.
Regarding claim 5, Kaliki in view of Facteau teaches the muscle potential measurement device according to claim 3. Modified Kaliki fails to further disclose the device further comprising an insulating film that covers one or more openings in one or more positions, respectively, corresponding to the one or more pads to which the electrodes are not connected among the openings that are formed in the insulating sheet.
Schaefer teaches a disposable electrode for use in electromyography and/or nerve conduction velocity testing has a tab for connection to a cable connector and is laminated of a plurality of layers including first and second outer layers. The first layer is a backing member with exposed adhesive, a hydrogel layer intermediate the outer layers and a conductive foil layer between the hydrogel layer and the second outer layer. The electrode may be a disc electrode, a ground electrode or an elongated flexible digital ring electrode. The disc electrode includes two identical disc electrode elements having circular portions separably joined to each other at a central portion and the tab of each element is remote from the central portion. A kit contains a plurality of disposable electrodes packaged in a blister pack, the packaged electrodes including a plurality of such disc electrodes, a plurality of such ground electrodes and a plurality of such elongated flexible digital ring electrodes (Abstract). Thus, Schaefer is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand.
Schaefer teaches a backing member placed on each of the electrodes to protect the electrodes until use (Col 3 lines 58-63; Figs. 2-4 references 36, 38, and 40). The backing sheets protect the hydrogel/conductive adhesive layers of the sensors until they are removed prior to applying the sensor to the patient (Col 5 lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the protecting backing sheet described by Schaefer into the device of Kaliki such that each of the possible electrode connection points are covered by a backing sheet because Kaliki discloses that there may be multiple electrode connection points to allow the user to customize the placement of electrodes and that not every connection point has to be utilized (Col 3 line 52 – Col 4 line 8) so incorporating the backing of Schaefer for each of these points would not only protect them prior to use but would also protect the unused connection points during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kaliki does not explicitly describe or illustrate the cited interconnects. This argument is not found to be persuasive because previously cited Col 2 lines 28-42 of Kaliki recites “Each electrode leg may include electrode contacts electrically coupled to an electrically conductive path. The conductive path may include but is not limited to, a wire, a cable including one or more electrically conductive pathways, a layer deposited onto a substrate, and a printed circuit board” which explicitly recites the presence of electrically conductive pathways or “interconnects”.
Applicant argues that the electrodes of Kaliki fail to disclose a proximal end due to their shape. This argument is not found to be persuasive because the limitation drawn to the electrodes having a “proximal end” does not particularly limit the shape of the electrode and thus it would seem that any electrode comprises some end or side that could be considered the “proximal end”.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791