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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 04/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 11, 13-14, 16-24, 26 and 28-32 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 and its dependents and claim 28 and its dependents have been considered. However, in view of amendments the scope of the claims has been changed. In further review the arguments, pages 6-7, are rendered moot because a 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 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.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 26, 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORANKAR (US 20200085335 A1) herein referred to as “Monrankar” in view of Barber ( JP 2014510596 A) herein referred to as “Barber” further in view of Shibata (WO 2016093061 A1) herein referred to as “Shibata” further in view of Dunseath et. al. (US 20090099473 A1) herein referred to as “Dunseath”.
Regarding claim 11, Morankar discloses: An electrode for recording electrocardiogram signals and/or for stimulating a patient ([Abstract]; Morankar discloses an electrode configured to be used with electrocardiogram), the electrode comprising: a contact part ([0096]; Base (180) used to interface with the patient which is seen as a contact part) , a transmission part ([Figure 3A]; cap portion (350) which is seen as a transmission part), and a layer of electrolyte material configured to be in contact with the patient's skin and configured to be interposed between the patient's skin and the contact part ([0041]; A conductive polymer is used between the electrode and the patient), wherein said contact part has soft and flexible features due to comprising a soft and flexible cup ([0091]; The electrode is disclosed as made of rubber which is seen as soft and flexible. Further [Figure 2]; discloses the electrode having a cup shape) element adapted to house at least in part said layer of electrolyte material ([0038]; The conductive polymer is disclosed to be housed within the electrode), Morankar does not explicitly disclose: recording electroencephalographic signals; wherein the cup element includes a matrix of rubbery material, wherein particles of conductive material are embedded inside said matrix, wherein a layer of soft and flexible conductive material is provided, interposed, at least in part, between the cup element and the layer of electrolyte material, and wherein said layer of conductive material consists of one or more layers of conductive ink.
However, Barber discloses: a matrix of rubbery material, wherein particles of conductive material are embedded inside said matrix ([Description of Embodiments pp 5]; Barber discloses a silicon, which is seen as rubber, sensing region to which conductive material is added.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar with the conductive material doped silicon as disclosed by Barber. The motivation being to impart conductivity. ([Description of Embodiments pp 11];
However, SHIBATA discloses: interposed, at least in part, between the cup element and the layer of electrolyte material, and wherein said layer of conductive material consists of one or more layers of conductive ink. ([Figure 4(a)]; Conductive ink (21a) between the electrode and the conductive gel (11))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar with the conductive ink between the electrode and the conductive gel as disclosed by Shibata. The motivation being to keep improve signal and prevent peeling of the conductive gel ([Description of Embodiments pp 26])
However, Dunseath discloses: recording electroencephalographic signals. ([0001]; Dunseath discloses a apparatus and method for recording EEG)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode with the EEG recording as disclosed by Dunseath. The motivation being the simple substitution of one known element, recording of ECG, with another, recording of EEG, to obtain the predictable result of tracking physiological parameters.
Regarding claim 24, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 11. Morankar further discloses: wherein said contact part comprises the cup element adapted to house entirely said layer of electrolyte material. ([0038]; The conductive polymer is disclosed to be housed within the electrode)
Regarding claim 26, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 11. Morankar does not explicitly disclose: wherein said transmission part also includes a soft and/or flexible material.
However, Lappalainen discloses: wherein said transmission part also includes a soft and/or flexible material. ([0023]; The laminate the covers the transmission part of the matrix electrode may be made of hydrogel which is seen as flexible.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath with the flexible tramission area as disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being to adhere to skin ([0023]).
Regarding claim 28, Morankar discloses: An electrode for recording electroencephalographic signals and/or for stimulating a patient ([Abstract]; Morankar discloses an electrode configured to be used with electrocardiogram), the electrode comprising: a contact part ([0096]; Base (180) used to interface with the patient which is seen as a contact part), a transmission part ([Figure 3A]; cap portion (350) which is seen as a transmission part), and a layer of electrolyte material configured to be in contact with the patient's skin and configured to be interposed between the patient's skin and the contact part ([0041]; A conductive polymer is used between the electrode and the patient), wherein said contact part and/or said transmission part includes a soft and/or flexible material, wherein said contact part comprises a soft and flexible cup-shaped element ([0091]; The electrode is disclosed as made of rubber which is seen as soft and flexible. Further [Figure 2]; discloses the electrode having a cup shape) adapted to house at least in part said layer of electrolyte material, ([0038]; The conductive polymer is disclosed to be housed within the electrode), Morankar does not explicitly disclose: wherein the cup-shaped element includes a matrix of rubbery material, wherein particles of conductive material are embedded inside said matrix, wherein a layer of soft and flexible conductive material is provided, interposed, at least in part, between the cup-shaped element and the layer of electrolyte material, and wherein said layer of conductive material includes of one or more layers of conductive ink.
However, Barber discloses: a matrix of rubbery material, wherein particles of conductive material are embedded inside said matrix ([Description of Embodiments pp 5]; Barber discloses a silicon, which is seen as rubber, sensing region to which conductive material is added.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar with the conductive material doped silicon as disclosed by Barber. The motivation being to impart conductivity. ([Description of Embodiments pp 11];
However, SHIBATA discloses: interposed, at least in part, between the cup element and the layer of electrolyte material, and wherein said layer of conductive material consists of one or more layers of conductive ink. ([Figure 4(a)]; Conductive ink (21a) between the electrode and the conductive gel (11))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar with the condutive ink between the electrode and the conductive gel as disclosed by Shibata. The motivation being to keep improve signal and prevent peeling of the conductive gel ([Description of Embodiments pp 26])
However, Dunseath discloses: recording electroencephalographic signals. ([0001]; Dunseath discloses an apparatus and method for recording EEG)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode with the EEG recording as disclosed by Dunseath. The motivation being the simple substitution of one known element, recording of ECG, with another, recording of EEG, to obtain the predictable result of tracking physiological parameters.
Regarding claim 14, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 11. Morankar, (embodiment 1) further discloses: wherein said transmission part includes a wire of conductive material ([Figure 3A]; Wire (130) is attached to cap portion (350)), wherein said wire is fixed to said cup element ([Figure 3A]; Wire (130) is attached to the cup element). Morankar (embodiment 1) in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly discloses: wherein said transmission part further includes a sheath of rigid material provided at a connection between the wire and said cup element.
However, Morankar in view of a different embodiment (embodiment 2) discloses: wherein said transmission part further includes a sheath of rigid material provided at a connection between the wire and said cup element. ([Figure 3B]; Morankar discloses a channel 3200 that may be rigid in the area of transmission part of embodiment 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar (embodiment 1) with the rigid channel as disclosed by Moranokar (embodiment 2) in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath. The motivation being the indication that certain features from certain embodiments may be included in other embodiments ([0090]).
Regarding claim 30, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 28. Morankar, (embodiment 1) further discloses: wherein said transmission part includes a wire of conductive material ([Figure 3A]; Wire (130) is attached to cap portion (350)), wherein said wire is fixed to said cup element ([Figure 3A]; Wire (130) is attached to the cup element). Morankar (embodiment 1) in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly discloses: wherein said transmission part further includes a sheath of rigid material provided at a connection between the wire and said cup element.
However, Morankar in view of a different embodiment (embodiment 2) discloses: wherein said transmission part further includes a sheath of rigid material provided at a connection between the wire and said cup element. ([Figure 3B]; Morankar discloses a channel 3200 that may be rigid in the area of transmission part of embodiment 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar (embodiment 1) with the rigid channel as disclosed by Moranokar (embodiment 2) in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath. The motivation being the indication that certain features from certain embodiments may be included in other embodiments ([0090]).
Claim(s) 13 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORANKAR in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Wong et. al. (US 20190134393 A1) herein referred to as “Wong”
Regarding claim 13, Morankar further in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 11. Morankar further discloses: wherein said cup element ([Figure 2]; discloses the electrode having a cup shape). Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly disclose: includes conductive thermoplastic material, the conductive thermoplastic material comprising a thermoplastic elastomer and graphite particles provided within the thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Wong discloses: includes conductive thermoplastic material, the conductive thermoplastic material comprising a thermoplastic elastomer and graphite particles provided within the thermoplastic elastomer. ([0096]; Wong discloses thermoplastics loaded with graphite)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath with the thermoplastic as disclosed by Wong. The motivation being to improve conductivity ([0096]).
Regarding claim 29, Morankar further in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 28. Morankar further discloses: wherein said cup element ([Figure 2]; discloses the electrode having a cup shape). Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly disclose: includes conductive thermoplastic material, the conductive thermoplastic material comprising a thermoplastic elastomer and graphite particles provided within the thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Wong discloses: includes conductive thermoplastic material, the conductive thermoplastic material comprising a thermoplastic elastomer and graphite particles provided within the thermoplastic elastomer. ([0096]; Wong discloses thermoplastics loaded with graphite)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath with the thermoplastic as disclosed by Wong. The motivation being to improve conductivity ([0096]).
Claim(s) 16, 19, 21-23 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORANKAR in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen (US 20150238106 A1) herein referred to as “Lappalainen”.
Regarding claim 16, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 11. Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly disclose: wherein said electrode includes a plurality of branches, each of said plurality of branches including a head portion and a tail portion, wherein said contact part includes the head portions and said transmission part includes the tail portions, wherein each of said plurality of branches further includes a flexible support element, each of the flexible support elements including at least one conductive element, wherein each of the flexible support elements has a head terminal and a tail terminal, and wherein each of the conductive elements includes at least one head contact and at least one tail contact, respectively arranged at the head end and tail end of the flexible support element, each of said conductive elements including a conductive track made of a layer of conductive ink deposited on the flexible support element.
However, Lappalainen discloses: wherein said electrode includes a plurality of branches ([Figure 2]; Branches are disclosed extending from electrodes to coupling ), each of said plurality of branches including a head portion and a tail portion ([Figure 2]; branches contain a head portion which is seen as the portion in contact with electrodes (102) and a tail portion which is seen as the portion in contact with coupling (105)), wherein said contact part includes the head portions and said transmission part includes the tail portions ([Figure 2]; Contact part which is seen as electrodes (102) are connected to the head portion and coupling (105) which is connected to the tail portion), wherein each of said plurality of branches further includes a flexible support element ([0030]; The base of the electrodes is stated to be made of an elastic material), each of the flexible support elements including at least one conductive element ([Figure 1]; Lines (104) are conductive and are placed within the body made of elastic material) , wherein each of the flexible support elements has a head terminal and a tail terminal ([Figure 2]; The flexible support element that laminates the entire matrix is disclosed with a head and tail terminal corresponding to the head and tail of the branches), and wherein each of the conductive elements includes at least one head contact and at least one tail contact ([Figure 2]; As disclosed above the head and tail contact are arranged at the electrodes and tail element arranged at the coupling), respectively arranged at the head end and tail end of the flexible support element ([Figure 2]; the head contact located at the electrode is similarly arranged at the head of the support element and further the tail end located at the coupling is similarly arranged at the tail of the support element), each of said conductive elements including a conductive track made of a layer of conductive ink deposited on the flexible support element. ([0032]; Lines (104) are disclosed to be made of conductive ink, the conductive lines are located within the support element body and therefore seen as deposited within it)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath with the branches as disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being to maintain mutual placements of electrode ([Abstract]).
Regarding claim 19, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16. Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of the head contacts has a width between 3 millimetres and 20 millimetres ([Figure 1 Example Tip geometry]; The head contacts are in a range between 1micrometer and 1 centimeter), and each of the tail contacts has a width between 3 millimetres and 16 millimetres. ([Figure 1 Example Tip geometry]; The tail contacts which is the portion protruding from the head protion is between 1 micrometer and 10 millimetes)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branch length as disclosed by Ferro. The motivation being the simple substitution of a known element, the wire width as disclosed by Morankar, with another known element, the wire width as disclosed by Ferro, to obtain the predicable result of keeping a minimal diameter.
Regarding claim 21, The electrode according to claim 16. Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of said branches are arranged in a coplanar manner and converge with the tail parts portions thereof towards a terminal end. ([Figure 2]; Lappalaninen discloses branches converging toward the terminal end (105).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branches as further disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being having an arrangement that is favorable for measurements of patients skin ([0011]).
Regarding claim 22, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16. Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of the head contacts has a width between 3 millimetres and 20 millimetres. ([Figure 1 Example Tip geometry]; The head contacts are in a range between 1micrometer and 1 centimeter)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branch length as disclosed by Ferro. The motivation being the simple substitution of a known element, the wire width as disclosed by Morankar, with another known element, the wire width as disclosed by Ferro, to obtain the predicable result of keeping a minimal diameter.
Regarding claim 21, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16, Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of the tail contacts has a width between 3 millimetres and 16 millimetres. ([Figure 1 Example Tip geometry]; The tail contacts which is the portion protruding from the head protion is between 1 micrometer and 10 millimetes)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branch length as disclosed by Ferro. The motivation being the simple substitution of a known element, the wire width as disclosed by Morankar, with another known element, the wire width as disclosed by Ferro, to obtain the predicable result of keeping a minimal diameter.
Regarding claim 31, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath disclose: The electrode according to claim 28. Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath do not explicitly disclose: wherein said electrode includes a plurality of branches, each of said plurality of branches including a head portion and a tail portion, wherein said contact part includes the head portions and said transmission part includes the tail portions, wherein each of said plurality of branches further includes a flexible support element, each of the flexible support elements including at least one conductive element, wherein each of the flexible support elements has a head terminal and a tail terminal, and wherein each of the conductive elements includes at least one head contact and at least one tail contact, respectively arranged at the head end and tail end of the flexible support element, each of said conductive elements including a conductive track made of a layer of conductive ink deposited on the flexible support element.
However, Lappalainen discloses: wherein said electrode includes a plurality of branches ([Figure 2]; Branches are disclosed extending from electrodes to coupling ), each of said plurality of branches including a head portion and a tail portion ([Figure 2]; branches contain a head portion which is seen as the portion in contact with electrodes (102) and a tail portion which is seen as the portion in contact with coupling (105)), wherein said contact part includes the head portions and said transmission part includes the tail portions ([Figure 2]; Contact part which is seen as electrodes (102) are connected to the head portion and coupling (105) which is connected to the tail portion), wherein each of said plurality of branches further includes a flexible support element ([0030]; The base of the electrodes is stated to be made of an elastic material), each of the flexible support elements including at least one conductive element ([Figure 1]; Lines (104) are conductive and are placed within the body made of elastic material) , wherein each of the flexible support elements has a head terminal and a tail terminal ([Figure 2]; The flexible support element that laminates the entire matrix is disclosed with a head and tail terminal corresponding to the head and tail of the branches), and wherein each of the conductive elements includes at least one head contact and at least one tail contact ([Figure 2]; As disclosed above the head and tail contact are arranged at the electrodes and tail element arranged at the coupling), respectively arranged at the head end and tail end of the flexible support element ([Figure 2]; the head contact located at the electrode is similarly arranged at the head of the support element and further the tail end located at the coupling is similarly arranged at the tail of the support element), each of said conductive elements including a conductive track made of a layer of conductive ink deposited on the flexible support element. ([0032]; Lines (104) are disclosed to be made of conductive ink, the conductive lines are located within the support element body and therefore seen as deposited within it)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath with the branches as disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being to maintain mutual placements of electrode ([Abstract]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORANKAR in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen further in view of Ferro et. al. (US 20210085961 A1) herein referred to as “Ferro”
Regarding claim 17, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16. Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen do not explicitly disclose: wherein said plurality of branches have a length less than a value between 23 centimetres and 27 centimetres.
However, Ferro discloses: wherein said plurality of branches have a length less than a value between 23 centimetres and 27 centimetres. ([0005]; Ferro discloses the length of wires, which are seen as branches, being between 10 micrometers and 100 centimeters)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branch length as disclosed by Ferro. The motivation being the simple substitution of a known element, the wire length as disclosed by Morankar, with another known element, the wire length as disclosed by Ferro, to obtain the predicable result of having a variable length to aid in the placement of electrodes.
Regarding claim 18, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16. Ferro further discloses: wherein each of said plurality of branches has a thickness between 50 micrometres and 200 micrometres. ([Figure 1 Cross Section]; Ferro discloses a range of thickness spanning 0.1 micrometers to 1 millimeters)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branch length as disclosed by Ferro. The motivation being the simple substitution of a known element, the wire width as disclosed by Morankar, with another known element, the wire width as disclosed by Ferro, to obtain the predicable result of keeping a minimal diameter.
Claim(s) 20 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORANKAR in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen further in view of Mclntire et. al. (US 20080249390 A1) herein referred to as “Mclntire”
Regarding claim 20, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 16.
Morankar does not explicitly disclose: wherein each of said branches are arranged in a coplanar manner and converge with the tail parts portions thereof towards a terminal end, and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity.
However, Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of said branches are arranged in a coplanar manner and converge with the tail parts portions thereof towards a terminal end, and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity. ([Figure 2]; Lappalainen discloses branches arranged in a coplaner manner and convereging at terminal end (105).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branches as further disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being having an arrangement that is favorable for measurements of patients skin ([0011]).
However, Mclntire discloses and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity ([Figure 1]; The electrode branches (20) are symmetric with respect a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with symmetrical branches as disclosed by Mclntire. The motivation being to have branches that are separable ([0035]).
Regarding claim 32, Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen disclose: The electrode according to claim 31. Morankar does not explicitly disclose: wherein each of said branches are arranged in a coplanar manner and converge with the tail parts portions thereof towards a terminal end, and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity.
However, Lappalainen further discloses: wherein each of said branches are arranged in a coplanar manner and converge with the tail parts portions thereof towards a terminal end, and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity. ([Figure 2]; Lappalainen discloses branches arranged in a coplanar manner and convereging at terminal end (105).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with the branches as further disclosed by Lappalainen. The motivation being having an arrangement that is favorable for measurements of patients skin ([0011]).
However, Mclntire discloses and wherein each of the branches are further arranged symmetrically with respect to a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity ([Figure 1]; The electrode branches (20) are symmetric with respect a plane perpendicular to the plane of coplanarity)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cup electrode as disclosed by Morankar in view of Barber further in view of Shibata further in view of Dunseath further in view of Lappalainen with symmetrical branches as disclosed by Mclntire. The motivation being to have branches that are separable ([0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY GEORGE CHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/CASEY GEORGE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights