DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/20/2026, 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 on 01/20/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1 and 3-6 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 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 and 3-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “each blade rounded with a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm” in line 7. It is unclear what constitutes as “approximately 1 mm”, and how close to 1 mm would still be considered “approximately 1 mm”. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, any value within ± 5 mm will teach on this limitation. Claims 3-6 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the curved profile having a radius of curvature of at least 50 mm, each blade rounded with a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm” in lines 6-7. Since the curved profile is part of the blade, it is unclear how the blade has both a radius of curvature of at least 50 mm and also a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm as well. The broad and indefinite scope of the limitation fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, therefore the claim is rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as the blade only requiring a radius of curvature of at least 50 mm or a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm. Claims 3-6 are also rejected due to their dependence 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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 20190192024) in view of Jung (US 20130310676), Araki (WO 2019058739), and Dar (WO 2017130133). Citations to WO 2019058739 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Watson teaches a sensor for an electroencephalographic (EEG) device for measuring electrical signals generated by neuronal activity of a subject ([0005]: “This specification describes technologies for EEG signal processing in general, and specifically to systems and methods for prompting, processing, and analyzing EEG signals using machine learning techniques. These technologies generally involve an EEG system that is portable with easy to apply sensors”), the sensor comprising at least two blades, each blade comprising a contact surface (Fig 7A, reference character 720; Fig. 8, reference character 820), the contact surface having a curved profile in a plane transecting a scalp of the subject, the curved profile being convex in a direction normal to the scalp of the subject, the curved profile forming a blade shape, a curvature of the blade shape not conforming to the curvature of the scalp (Fig 7A, reference character 720; Fig. 8, reference character 820).
However, Watson does not disclose the blades extending in parallel.
Jung discloses an EEG hair band. Specifically, Jung teaches the blades extending in parallel ([0025]: “a barrette EEG comprising a clasp or ping for holding an EEG contact in place against the scalp by pressing or clipping two pieces or metal, plastic or other material in parallel secured against hair.”; [0024]: “As shown in FIG. 5, multiple teeth can be attached to a barrette 510 that does not rely on circumnavigating the head but clips to a smaller portion of the head by securing to hair … Electrodes can be placed on the tips of each tooth, as discussed above, or alternatively, or in addition, the support member 530 lies flat on the scalp allowing electrodes 540 on the snap clip to contact the scalp of the wearer, while held tightly in place by the inner locking member 520”; Fig. 5 shows the teeth on the inner locking member and the support member 530, which are the two pieces of metal that are in parallel, therefore if the EEG electrodes are on both pieces of metal that are in parallel, they are also in parallel.). Watson and Jung are analogous arts as they are both devices use EEG electrodes to perform an analysis on a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the loop electrodes from Watson into the parallel configuration of electrodes from Jung as it allows the device to create a better contact with the head of the user and keep it in place better, ensuring a better and more accurate measurement, and would be a simple substitution to change the configuration, as Watson discloses the electrodes are held in place by a headband or other headwear ([0117]: “The sensors can be secured in place using, for example, adhesive tape, a headband, or some other headwear”).
However, the Watson/Jung combination is silent on the radius of curvature of the curved profile.
Dar discloses a head mounted device for sensing body parameters. Specifically, Dar teaches the curved profile having a radius of curvature of at least 50 mm, each blade rounded with a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm (Page 16: “a joint contact surface including the contact surfaces of the first and second posterior electrodes has a generally frusto-conical outline defining a base and a curved tip, connected by a pair of side curves, and wherein the first posterior electrode and the second posterior electrode are mirror image symmetrical about a horizontal axis of symmetry. In some such embodiments, a curvature of the tip corresponds to that of a circle having a radius not greater than 10mm, a curvature of the side curves corresponds to that of a circle having a radius of at least 50mm”. The curvature of the tip having a radius not greater than 10 cm includes a radius of curvature of approximately 1 mm, and the curvature of the side curves having a radius of at least 50 mm is the radius of curvature of the curved profile. The blades from the Watson/Jung combination are each an electrode, therefore the curvatures of the electrodes defined in Dar can be used to define the curvatures of the electrodes from the Watson/Jung combination.). Watson, Jung, and Dar are analogous arts as they are all devices use EEG electrodes to perform an analysis on a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the radii from Dar into the Watson/Jung combination as the combination is silent on the dimensions of the curves, and Dar discloses suitable radii dimensions in an analogous device.
The Watson/Jung/Dar combination teaches the sensor including an embedded metal plate that serves as a mechanical reinforcement and an electrical conduction function (Watson, [0151]: “Wire loop electrodes 720 are bare electrically-conducting wires that are in electrical contact with metal press stud 730. During use, a user can position sensor 700 in their hair with the top of wire loop electrodes contacting their scalp. A lead, featuring female press stud fastener, is connected to press stud 730, connecting sensor 700 to a bioamplifier or transceiver”. Additionally, the limitation of “that serves as a mechanical reinforcement and an electrical conduction function” is intended use and therefore does not distinguish the claimed structure from the combination.).
However, the Watson/Jung/Dar combination does not teach the sensor formed in an electrically conductive material comprising a thermoplastic charged with conductive particles.
Araki discloses an electrode sheet that can be used for acquiring an electroencephalogram. Specifically, Araki teaches the sensor formed in an electrically conductive material comprising a thermoplastic charged with conductive particles ([0034]: “The stretchable electrode 12 is formed of, for example, a conductive material in which conductive particles are dispersed in a thermoplastic resin (resin binder).”). Watson, Jung, Dar, and Araki are analogous arts as they are all devices use EEG electrodes to perform an analysis on a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the thermoplastic from Araki in the sensor from the Watson/Jung/Dar combination as it allows the sensor to have more connection with the user it is measuring, therefore creating a stronger signal and allowing the sensor to provide a more accurate measurement.
Regarding claim 4, the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the sensor is electrically coupled to an electronic circuit (Watson, [0025]: “a bioamplifier may include the data processing apparatus”), the electronic circuit amplifying the electrical signals (Watson, [0025]: “The bioamplifier may further include an amplifier arranged to receive the EEG signals from the analogue-to-digital converter and amplify the received EEG signals”).
Regarding claim 5, the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination teaches the sensor of claim 4, wherein the electronic circuit further operates to filter the amplified electrical signals (Watson, [0120]: “Cleaning the EEG signal includes various operations that improve the usability of the signal for subsequent analysis, e.g., by reducing noise in the EEG signal. For example, cleaning the EEG signal can include filtering the signal by applying a transfer function to input data, e.g., to attenuate some frequencies in the data and leave others behind”).
Regarding claim 6, the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination teaches the sensor of claim 4, further comprising a connector for connecting to an electronic signal processing chain of the EEG device (Watson, [0160]: “platform 1210 includes one or more printed circuit boards (PCBs). The PCB can include connectors for components of sensor processing module 1230, power source 1240, signal lines connected different components of the sensor”), the chain comprising;
one or more analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) configured to transform the signals received from the electronic circuit into digital signals (Watson, [0025]: “The bioamplifier may further include an amplifier arranged to receive the EEG signals from the analogue-to-digital converter and amplify the received EEG signals”); and
a microcontroller for performing at least one of transmitting to an external processing unit (Watson, [0079]: “the EEG sensor assembly may include a wireless transmitter in communication with the sensor processing module and arranged to wirelessly transmit to the EEG signal to a receiver”) and/or storing said digital signals (Watson, [0196]: “The memory 1720 stores information within the system 1700. In one implementation, the memory 1720 is a computer-readable medium. In one implementation, the memory 1720 is a volatile memory unit. In another implementation, the memory 1720 is a non-volatile memory unit”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou (WO 2017125081). Citations to WO 2017125081 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding claim 3, the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination teaches the sensor of claim 1, wherein the sensor is arranged in a frame (Watson, [0130]: “The sensors can be secured in place using, for example, adhesive tape, a headband, or some other headwear”. The headband or other headwear is the frame.).
However, the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination does not teach wherein the sensor is arranged in a frame, the frame having a spring, urging the contact surface of each blade of the sensor towards the scalp so as to form contacts with the scalp when the device is worn by the subject.
Chou discloses a physiological sensing device that uses EEG signals for monitoring. Specifically, Chou teaches the frame having a spring, urging the contact surface of each blade of the sensor towards the scalp so as to form contacts with the scalp when the device is worn by the subject (Page 17: “each dispersed contact point can be implemented to be retractable, for example, as shown in FIG. 7B, in the form of a spring pin to further ensure the achievement of contact. For example, the contact between the skin and the electrode can be achieved by compressing the spring pin. In this way, even if a small displacement occurs between the skin and the electrode, it can be overcome by the retractable elasticity of the spring pin”. The loop electrodes from the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination are connected to the headband or other headwear (the frame), and the spring is located in between the electrodes and the headband to ensure contact with the user’s head.). Watson, Jung, Dar, Araki, and Chou are analogous arts as they are all devices use EEG electrodes to perform an analysis on a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the spring from Chou into the sensor from the Watson/Jung/Dar/Araki combination as it allows the contact of the blades to be more secure, ensuring that the sensor is able to produce the most accurate measurement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-6 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 ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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 at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791