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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Applicant' s arguments, filed 12/1/2025, 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 12/1/2025.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15-16, 18, 22-25, 28, 31, 33, 36, and 39 are the currently pending claims hereby under examination, with claims 1 and 39 having been amended.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 39 recite that, when worn by the user, a portion of the flexible and extendable body between the first and second connection points “rotates towards the concave space and collapses into the concave space giving the bio-signal sensor … a concave surface in contact with the user" (Claim 1, lines 23-25; Claim 39, lines 13-14). The Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that, during wear, the sensor-carrying portion of the flexible and extendable body is drawn toward and deforms toward the concave space defined by the electronics module such that the sensor region conforms to the user’s curved forehead (or other contacted body portion) and thereby presents an overall concave contact profile along the band region that contacts the user. This interpretation is consistent with the specification’s disclosure that, upon the flexible and extendable body extending to be worn by the user with the electronics module attached, “a portion of body 111 between first connection point 34A and second connection point 34B rotates towards the concave space, and electronics module 32 urges bio-signal sensor 20 on body 111 against user 10’s body” (Spec., ¶[0206]). The specification further discloses that the electronics module has “a surface … defining concave space 35” between ends attachable to the body via retention mounts (Spec., ¶[0205]), and that, when worn, a force (e.g., tension) is applied to draw the electronics module toward the user (Spec., ¶[0206]). The Examiner does not interpret the above-recited limitation as requiring that each individual electrode contact face is itself formed as a concave surface. Rather, the specification describes conforming and deformation of the sensor-carrying body portion during wear, including use of compressible/conformable structures adjacent to the sensor region, for example, “a compressible section adjacent to bio-signal sensor 20 to compress to conform the at least one bio-signal sensor 20 to user 10’s body” (Spec., ¶[0218]). In this context, the “concave surface in contact with the user” is interpreted as the overall concave configuration of the sensor region along the flexible body when worn and urged against the user, rather than a concave geometry of each individual sensor contact face.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 24-25, 28, 31, 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US-20070249952-A1), hereto referred as Rubin, and further in view of FCC (FCC ID WH4ZEO101, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101, 9/17/2008, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as FCC, and DCRainmaker (DCRainmaker, Zeo – In Depth Product Review, www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/12/zeo-in-depth-product-review.html, 12/20/2010, accessed 8/24/2025), hereto referred as DCRainmaker, as evidence, and further in view of Aimone (US-20140347265-A1), hereto referred as Aimone.
Regarding Claim 1, Rubin teaches that a wearable device comprises: a flexible and extendable body configured to encircle a portion of a user (Rubin, FIG. 1, 2A, 3, [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead, as shown in FIG. 1", showing a flexible body that encircles the head comprising a headband and electrode backing 212, which together provides pressing force; [0037]: "The headband 208 can be made of elastic, or other flexible fabric or materials that are also stretchable, to allow the headband 208 to fit snugly around the user's head. The circumference formed by the headband 208 may also be adjusted... The length of the ends 220 a and 220 b... may be varied to vary the circumference formed by the headband", confirms flexible and extendable construction); an electronics module (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0035]: "A support structure housing 210, also attached to the dry electrode backing 212, contains an electrode processor for processing the EEG signals detected by the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 and a wireless transmitter", teaches an electronics module on the flexible and extendable body); the first end attachable to the flexible and extendable body at a first connection point... with a first flexible retention mount to allow rotation of the flexible and extendable body relative to the electronics module about a first axis and to transfer a tension force from the flexible and extendable body to the electronics module radially from the first axis, the second end attachable to the flexible and extendable body at a second connection point... with a second flexible retention mount to allow rotation of the flexible and extendable body relative to the electronics module about a second axis and to transfer the tension force from the flexible and extendable body to the electronics module radially from the second axis (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: "the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324...", shows that the housing is retained at both ends by snaps, which act as retention mounts at opposite ends of the module; FIG. 1, [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes...against the user's forehead", shows that the elastic strap connects to the ends of the electrode backing, and when tensioned around the head, the backing (and the module snapped onto it) is pulled toward the forehead; [0037]: "The headband 208 can be made of elastic...to allow the headband 208 to fit snugly around the user's head", confirms that strap elasticity provides the tension force, which is transmitted through the strap-to-backing connections and then through the snaps into the housing; Although Rubin does not use the word "rotation," under the broadest reasonable interpretation the combination of an elastic strap, strap-to-backing connections, and snap mounts allows pivoting of the strap relative to the housing at each end. This relative movement corresponds to the claimed "rotation about a first/second axis", while the strap tension is transferred radially through those mounts to draw the housing toward the user); wherein the flexible and extendable body is constructed such that when worn the flexible and extendable body applies the tension force to the electronics module via the first and second flexible retention mount to draw the electronics module towards the user (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: "the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324..."; discloses the electronics housing joined to the strap/backing via snap mounts at its ends; FIG. 1, [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes...against the user's forehead"; shows strap tension transmitted into the backing to press the assembly against the head; [0037]: "The headband 208 can be made of elastic ... to allow the headband 208 to fit snugly around the user's head."; confirms that strap elasticity provides the tension force; Together, these passages show that when the elastic strap is tensioned, that force is conveyed through the snaps at each end into the module housing, thereby drawing the module toward the user's head); wherein the electronics module is positioned and supported structurally to urge the biosignal sensor into contact with the user (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: "the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324..."; the electronics module housing is structurally coupled to and positioned over the electrode backing, such that when the strap/backing is drawn snug against the head, the housing presses the electrodes to the head; [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead", shows that when worn the strap/backing assembly (to which the housing is snapped) is pulled toward the head and presses the electrodes; [0037]: "A deformable padding, such as a deformable foam, may be disposed behind each dry electrode to help press the dry electrode against the user's skin", indicates padding is an intermediate cushion between the electrodes and the module that helps the pressing already produced by the housing/backing being drawn toward the head); and a bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body between the first connection point and the second connection point to contact at least part of the portion of the user and to receive bio-signals from the user (Rubin, FIG. 2B, [0035]: "The sensor 200 includes dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206... A headband 208 ... can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead...", showing that electrodes (i.e. sensors) on the band contact the user where the figure depicts the sensors between the connection points, [0031]: "for detecting electroencephalogram (EEG) signals", which are bio-signals).
Also regarding claim 1, Rubin does not expressly disclose that the electronics module has a concave surface between a first end and a second end opposite the first end, attachable to the flexible and extendable body at the first end of the concave surface [and] at the second end of the concave surface, wherein a concave space is defined by the concave surface and the surface of the flexible and extendable body. Rather, Rubin discloses an electronics module attached to the backing/strap by snaps at its ends (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]). However, Rubin does not describe the housing as having a concave underside, nor does it expressly disclose a concave space defined between a concave surface of the module and the strap/backing. FCC external photos of the Zeo Sleep Manager (FCC, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101/1002126.pdf, p. 1-4, FIG. 1-4) depict the detachable electronics pod with an arched/curved (concave) underside across its length and end-mounted snaps for attachment to the headband strap. It also shows that when the strap spans between those snap points, a recess (concave space) is created between the strap and the concave underside of the module (FCC, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101/1002125.pdf, p.1, FIG. 1-2). DCRainmaker Figure 8 further corroborates this by showing the Zeo headband in use, where the concave underside of the electronics pod and the strap spanning the end snaps visibly define the recessed space beneath the pod (DCRainmaker, FIG. 8, 20). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rubin's support-structure housing in view of FCC's Zeo pod to contour the underside of the electronics module concavely between its two end snaps, thereby defining a concave space with the strap/backing. The combination is feasible because both Rubin and FCC disclose snap-mounted electronics housings at opposite ends of a flexible strap, and FCC explicitly shows the same geometry as Rubin but explicitly defining a concave housing profile (noting that the FCC Zeo pod is the commercial embodiment corresponding to Rubin's disclosure, further evidencing that the concave contour was an obvious refinement). The motivation to make such a modification is provided by ergonomic and functional benefits (conforming the housing profile to the curved anatomy of the forehead, reducing bulk against the user, and allowing the strap to bow or collapse into the concave recess) yielding improved comfort and more stable electrode contact, which Rubin already emphasizes as desirable ("...fit snugly...", "...press the dry electrodes...", "...help press the dry electrode against the user's skin").
Also regarding claim 1, with respect to a portion of the flexible extendable body between the first connection point and the second connection point being shaped and arranged in a way such that when worn the portion of the flexible extendable body rotates towards the concave space and collapses into the concave space giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body a concave surface in contact with the user, the modified Rubin depicts the relevant concave-space geometry and strap spanning between end-mounted snaps, and Aimone provides express teaching for configuring a sensor-carrying band portion to deform and conform under wear forces such that the sensor region presents an overall concave contact profile when worn.
Specifically, Rubin teaches a flexible elastic headband “attached to opposite ends of the electrode backing… [that] can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes … against the user's forehead” (Rubin, FIG. 1, [0035]) and “made of elastic … to allow the headband… to fit snugly around the user's head” (Rubin, [0037]), establishing that the strap stretches and applies tension around the head and presses the sensor region against the user. FCC external photos of the Zeo device depict an electronics pod with a concave underside and end-mounted snaps, with the strap segment spanning between those snap points across the concave underside to define a recess beneath the pod (FCC, External Photos, pp. 1–4, FIGS. 1–4; p. 1, FIGS. 1–2), and DCRainmaker depicts the headband in use with the pod seated on the forehead and the strap spanning between the end connections over the recessed region beneath the pod (DCRainmaker, FIG. 8; FIG. 20). When the device is worn, the elastic strap applies tension through the end-mounted snap connections at each end of the pod while the convex forehead presses against the sensor-carrying strap portion. Under these wear conditions, the strap portion between the two end connection points is permitted to pivot at the end-mounted snaps and is urged inward toward the pod’s concave underside, which corresponds to the claimed rotation of the strap portion toward the concave space. Further, because the strap span remains tensioned between the two ends while the forehead applies inward pressure, the strap span naturally bows and collapses into the concave recess defined beneath the pod, seating the sensor-carrying region into the concave space.
To the extent the claim further requires that this wear-state rotation and collapse results in “giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body a concave surface in contact with the user,” Aimone expressly teaches configuring a head-worn band assembly so that sensors disposed along a curved inner band portion conform to the user’s forehead shape under wear forces, including by providing a deformable attachment and biasing component that urges the sensor toward the forehead when worn (Aimone, [0007]: “at least one brainwave sensor disposed inwardly along the curved inner band portion… and a deformable attachment… allowing the inner band to conform to the user's forehead shape, the deformable attachment having a biasing component to urge the… sensor towards the user's forehead when worn by the user”). Aimone further teaches that when a force is applied from the user’s forehead, the inner band “flex[es] or deform[s]” by “(partially) collapsing” resilient spring arms that “bias the inner band towards the user’s forehead,” including where the spring aligns with the sensor position “to bias or urge the sensor… towards the user’s head” (Aimone, [0050]), and this conforming and collapsing behavior is illustrated in Aimone FIGS. 16–18 (Aimone, FIGS. 16–18; [0050]). Thus, Aimone makes explicit that a sensor-carrying band portion may be shaped and arranged to deform and conform to forehead curvature during wear, such that the contacting sensor region presents an overall concave surface profile in contact with the user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin device in view of Aimone such that, when worn, the strap portion between the first and second connection points is shaped and arranged to rotate toward and collapse into the concave space of the pod in a manner that causes the sensor region to conform to the user’s forehead curvature, thereby giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body an overall concave surface in contact with the user. The combination is feasible because the modified Rubin and FCC disclose discloses the concave headband architecture with an end-mounted electronics pod and strap tensioning during wear, and Aimone expressly discloses deformable and biasing structures arranged at sensor locations to permit deformation and conforming of the sensor-carrying band toward the user’s forehead when worn (Aimone, [0007]; [0050]). Further, the presence of padding or cushioning in the FCC device does not preclude such deformation and conforming behavior, as Aimone teaches that conforming and biasing of a sensor region may be implemented using a variety of deformable structures, including resilient attachments, springs, or compressible materials arranged to urge the sensor toward the user during wear (Aimone, [0007]; [0050]). The motivation would have been to improve comfort and contact stability and to ensure good sensor contact on the curved forehead, consistent with the known advantages of conforming and biasing sensor regions for reliable bio-signal acquisition (Aimone, [0007]; Aimone, [0012]) and Rubin’s emphasis on snug fit and pressing electrodes against the skin (Rubin, [0035]; [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rubin teaches that the bio-signal sensor is an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor configured to measure or generate electrical potential; and the bio-signal sensor is configured to contact at least part of a frontal region of a head of the user (Rubin, Abstract: “Systems and methods for monitoring EEG signals include dry electrodes that can be used in sleep monitoring systems. In one aspect, a system for sleep stage monitoring and measurement includes a first dry electrode for detecting EEG signals of a user, a housing, and a sleep stage processor disposed within the housing. The first dry electrode is positioned at or near a head of the user", showing that the bio-signal sensors are EEG sensors configured to detect electrical potentials from the head; FIG. 1; [0035]: “A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead", shows that the EEG electrodes are positioned on the frontal region of the head).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rubin does not fully teach that the device further comprises an additional bio-signal sensor to contact at least part of an auricular region of a head of the user; wherein the additional bio-signal sensor is an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor. Rather, the modified Rubin discloses EEG electrodes for detecting electrical potentials and shows them positioned on the frontal region of the user’s head (Rubin, FIG. 1; [0035]: “A headband 208 … can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead”). However, the modified Rubin does not disclose placement of an EEG electrode at or near the auricular region of the user’s head. Aimone teaches EEG sensors, also attached to a headband, positioned at or near the auricular region. (Aimone, FIGS. 1A-C, 10A-C; ¶[0100]: “FIGS. 10A-10C further show bio-signal sensor 1040 positioned inside the ear. Sensor 1040 may be disposed on an earbud-shaped element for inserting in, at, or on the ear"; ¶[0101]: “FIGS. 1A-1C show bio-signal sensor 120 positioned above the ear, and bio-signal sensor 150 positioned behind the ear"). These passages and figures establish that EEG electrodes were known to be located in the auricular region (inside, above, or behind the ear) for acquiring EEG signals. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to include an additional EEG electrode at the auricular region of the head. The combination is feasible because Rubin already provides a head-mounted EEG system with a processor housing, and Aimone provides detailed teaching of auricular EEG electrode placement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate auricular electrodes to enhance signal quality and robustness by capturing EEG from additional anatomical sites, consistent with Rubin’s emphasis on reliable EEG detection. The predictable benefit of combining Rubin with Aimone would be improved electrode coverage and redundancy in signal acquisition for sleep monitoring.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rubin teaches that the device further comprises an electrical connection between the electronics module and at least one of the flexible and extendable body and the bio-signal sensor (Rubin, [0015]: “...a conductive fastener attaches the support structure housing to the support structure and provides electrical communication between the first dry electrode and the electrode processor...” , teaches that a conductive fastener couples the housing to the support structure and provides the electrical connection between the electrode and the processor; [0038]: “...the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324, which also serve to conduct signals from dry electrodes...to an electrode processor contained within the support structure housing 310” , shows that the metal snaps attaching the housing to the backing act both as mechanical mounts and as electrical connectors transmitting signals from the electrodes to the electronics module).
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the electronics module being curved to generally correspond to a head of the user, the modified Rubin have a concave surface oriented toward the user’s head, as shown above in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, when the device is worn on the convex forehead with the elastic headband tensioned, the electronics module’s concave underside would be shaped to generally match the head so the assembly seats comfortably and maintains uniform electrode pressure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electronics module of the modified Rubin be curved so as to correspond to the user’s head, in order to ensure fit and consistent electrode contact. The combination is feasible because both references disclose the same end-mounted housing on an elastic headband; adopting the demonstrated concave orientation as a head-conforming profile requires only routine contouring without changing the principle of operation. The motivation would have been the predictable ergonomic and functional benefits of improved comfort, reduced pressure points and bulk, and more stable electrode contact and signal quality, which Rubin already emphasizes through snug fit and pressing of the electrodes against the forehead.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Rubin does not teach that the wearable device further comprises an optical sensor disposed on the electronics module. Rather, the modified Rubin teaches a head-worn strap/backing with an electronics module (support structure housing) attached at ends via snaps that provide mechanical retention and electrical conduction (Rubin, ¶[0015], ¶[0038]), however, it does not disclose an optical sensor disposed on the electronics module. Aimone, who investigates a head worn EEG device, teaches optical sensors, including a camera and optical bio-sensing (fNIR, pulse oximetry) for monitoring user state and surroundings (Aimone, ¶[0039], ¶[0043]). Aimone further teaches mounting sensors on the wearable’s rigid structure located at the head/face and that the controller may be mounted to a headband computing device (Aimone, ¶[0042], ¶[0047], ¶[0050], ¶[0098]–[0101]), thereby providing the missing teaching of disposing an optical sensor on the module/frame of a head-worn device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to include an optical sensor disposed on the electronics module. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s housing already contains processing and communication electronics and provides electrical communication via snaps/fasteners (Rubin, ¶[0015], ¶[0038]), so adding an optical sensor onto that rigid housing is a straightforward mechanical and electrical integration, and Aimone explicitly teaches mounting sensors on a head-worn rigid structure and connecting sensors to the wearable device (Aimone, ¶[0042], ¶[0047], ¶[0098]–[0101]), making the integration technically routine. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s role as a sleep aid device, where multimodal monitoring is well recognized as valuable for assessing sleep quality. Aimone’s optical biosensing modalities, such as blood flow measurement and hemoglobin oxygenation, directly complement Rubin’s EEG monitoring by adding parameters highly relevant to sleep physiology. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate these optical modalities to provide a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of sleep state, consistent with the ordinary practices of clinical polysomnography and consumer sleep monitoring devices available prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Rubin (as described above with respect to the rejection of claim 12) does not teach that the optical sensor detects additional bio-signals based at least in part on at least one of: a detected reflection distance of light reflected into the optical sensor, a measured colour of the light reflected into the sensor, and a measured intensity of the light reflected into the optical sensor. Rather, the modified Rubin teaches an optical sensor as shown in, claim 12 above, but it does not disclose an optical sensor detecting additional bio-signals based on reflection distance, measured color, or intensity. Aimone teaches head-worn optical biosensing modalities (pulse oximetry and fNIR) that determine physiological information from wavelength-dependent absorption and from changes in detected light intensity (Aimone, ¶[0039]–[0043]). These teachings provide the missing basis for using the optical sensor to detect additional bio-signals based at least in part on measured color and/or measured intensity. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to configure the optical sensor to detect additional bio-signals based at least in part on measured color or measured intensity of light reflected into the sensor. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s rigid head-mounted housing already integrates electronics and provides stable mechanical support, and Aimone teaches optical biosensors that operate using wavelength selection and intensity attenuation; integrating such an optical biosensor onto Rubin’s module is a routine mechanical/electrical adaptation that leverages the existing housing and power/data paths. The motivation to combine arises from Aimone’s identified benefits of optical biosensing (e.g., blood-flow/oxygenation measures) that would augment Rubin’s EEG, yielding more robust, multimodal physiological monitoring on the same head-worn platform. Importantly, the modified Rubin’s system is directed to sleep monitoring, and Aimone’s optical modalities such as pulse oximetry and fNIR directly support this purpose by providing additional parameters (oxygen saturation, blood perfusion) that are highly relevant for assessing sleep quality and sleep-related conditions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Aimone’s optical sensing into Rubin’s sleep aid device to enhance its ability to track physiological state during sleep and improve overall monitoring accuracy.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Rubin does not teach that the wearable device further comprises a vibrational transducer. Rather, the modified Rubin teach a head-worn device with an electronics housing and bio-signal electrodes, but does not disclose the inclusion of a vibrational transducer. Aimone, who investigates a head worn EEG device, teaches wearable computing devices incorporating audio transducers, including microphones into a headset or headband (Aimone, ¶[0044], ¶[0050]). These teachings supply the missing feature of a vibrational transducer in a head-worn device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to incorporate a vibrational transducers into the wearable device. This would have been a predictable extension of Aimone’s design principle of providing multimodal interaction through integrated transducers. The combination is feasible because Rubin already provides a headband-mounted module with integrated electronics, and Aimone discloses that wearable devices can integrate audio transducers. Adding a vibrational transducer to Rubin’s headband would have been a straightforward electrical and mechanical adaptation consistent with these teachings. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s purpose as a sleep aid, where integrating audio input and output can extend the functionality of the device. Aimone shows that head-worn devices commonly integrate microphones and speakers as audio transducers (¶[0044], ¶[0050]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it a straightforward and predictable modification to incorporate these audio transducers into Rubin’s headband to enable monitoring of sounds such as snoring or breathing, as well as audio output for prompts or cues. The predictable benefit would be a more comprehensive sleep-monitoring system with both EEG and audio-based inputs/outputs, improving reliability and user interaction in line with ordinary practices of wearable device design prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Rubin (as described above with respect to the rejection of claim 24) does not teach that the vibrational transducer is at least one of a speaker, a microphone, and a physical vibration generator. Rather, the modified Rubin teach a head-worn device with an electronics housing and electrodes including vibrational transducers such as speakers and microphones, but do not disclose a vibrational transducer in the form of a physical vibration generator. Aimone teaches wearable computing devices incorporating microphones and speakers as audio transducers, as well as vibrational actuators (haptic feedback and acoustic bone conduction) (Aimone, ¶[0044], ¶[0048], ¶[0079], ¶[00181]). These teachings supply the missing feature of a vibrational transducer being at least one of a speaker, a microphone, or a physical vibration generator. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to incorporate a vibrational transducer in the form of a speaker, microphone, or vibration generator. This would have been a predictable extension of Aimone’s design principle of integrating multiple types of transducers into head-worn devices. The combination is feasible because the modified Rubin already provides a headband-mounted electronics system, and Aimone explicitly teaches microphones, speakers, and vibration actuators in wearable head-worn devices. Incorporating these elements into the system would have been a routine electrical and mechanical adaptation. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s use as a sleep aid, where audio input/output and physical vibration could improve functionality. Microphones allow monitoring of sleep-related sounds such as snoring or breathing, speakers allow output of cues or prompts, and vibration generators provide non-auditory signaling if desired. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating these specific types of vibrational transducers would predictably improve Rubin’s system for comprehensive sleep monitoring and interaction, consistent with established practices in wearable device design prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Rubin (as described above with respect to the rejection of claim 24) does not teach that the vibrational transducer is disposed on the flexible and extendable body to be adjacent to at least one of an ear of the user, a front of a head of the user, and a bone of the user. Rather, the modified Rubin teach a head-worn device with vibrational transducers, but does not disclose them disposed on the flexible body adjacent to the ear, front of the head, or bone of the user. Aimone teaches wearable devices that employ vibrational actuators, including those configured for bone conduction audio feedback (Aimone, ¶[0048], ¶[0079], ¶[00181]). These teachings supply the missing feature of disposing a vibrational transducer adjacent to the user’s head at positions such as the ear or bone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Aimone to position a vibrational transducer on the flexible body of Rubin’s headband adjacent to an ear or a bone of the user. This placement is consistent with Aimone’s explicit teaching of bone conduction transducers in head-worn devices. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s flexible band already carries electrode sensors in contact with the user’s head, demonstrating it as a structure suitable for sensor and transducer placement. Aimone explicitly shows that vibrational actuators can be located at head-adjacent positions for audio and feedback functions, making it a routine adaptation to integrate such components into Rubin’s flexible band. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s purpose as a sleep aid. Placement of transducers adjacent to the ear or bone allows for private audio feedback (via bone conduction) or localized vibrations without disturbing others, and for capturing signals closely tied to sleep physiology. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that this integration would predictably improve Rubin’s device by enabling discreet, multimodal monitoring and feedback in a head-worn sleep system, consistent with established wearable design practices prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Rubin does not teach that the wearable device further comprises multiple vibrational transducers for beamforming; wherein the multiple vibrational transducers are an array of microphones to localize sound from a direction. Rather, the modified Rubin teaches a head-worn device with an electronics housing and electrodes, but do not disclose multiple vibrational transducers configured as a microphone array for beamforming. Aimone, who investigates a head worn EEG device, teaches the use of microphone arrays that incorporate audio effects including beamforming to localize sound direction (Aimone, ¶[0044], ¶[0164]: "Audio effects... tune into a conversation by beam forming"). These teachings provide the missing feature of multiple microphones arranged in an array to perform beamforming and localize sound sources. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified The modified Rubin in view of Aimone to incorporate multiple microphones into Rubin’s headband to enable beamforming and directional audio capture. This represents a predictable application of Aimone’s teachings of microphone arrays and beamforming to Rubin’s wearable device. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s headband already houses electrodes and processing electronics, and Aimone explicitly teaches microphone arrays and beamforming. Adding multiple microphones to Rubin’s device would have been a straightforward integration into the existing housing and band structure. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s role as a sleep aid, where audio monitoring can be useful to capture sleep-related sounds such as snoring, breathing, or ambient disturbances. Beamforming with multiple microphones, as taught by Aimone, would improve the accuracy of sound localization and filtering, thereby enhancing Rubin’s ability to monitor relevant sleep-related audio cues. This integration would have been consistent with the ordinary practices of wearable device design prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 33, the modified Rubin does not teach that the wearable device further comprises at least one of an accelerometer configured to detect movement of the user and a thermistor configured to detect a relative temperature change. Rather, The modified Rubin teach a head-worn device with an electronics housing and electrodes but do not disclose inclusion of an accelerometer or thermistor. Aimone teaches that head-worn EEG devices may incorporate additional sensors, including accelerometers, to detect user movement (Aimone, ¶[0181]). Aimone further explains that accelerometers can detect sluggish movement and sudden head bobs indicative of sleep jerks as a person drifts into sleep (Aimone, ¶[0237]). These teachings provide the missing feature of an accelerometer configured to detect movement of the user. Aimone also contemplates detecting the state of the user’s body, including body temperature, as part of its contextual sensing (Aimone, ¶[0281]). Thus, Aimone supports the concept of temperature-based sensing in head-worn devices. These teachings, together with Rubin, provide the missing features of both an accelerometer to detect movement and a thermistor or equivalent temperature sensor to detect relative temperature change. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified The modified Rubin in view of Aimone to incorporate additional transducers such as an accelerometer and/or thermistor. This represents a predictable application of Aimone’s teachings of supplemental head-worn sensors to Rubin’s device. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s housing already integrates electronics and sensors, and Aimone explicitly teaches accelerometers and other physiological sensors in head-worn systems. Adding these components into Rubin’s device would have been a routine adaptation within the ordinary skill of the art. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s use as a sleep aid, where detecting movement via accelerometers and temperature changes via thermistors are directly relevant to monitoring sleep stages and conditions. Incorporating these sensors into Rubin’s headband would predictably improve the comprehensiveness of sleep monitoring, consistent with the ordinary practices of wearable device design and clinical polysomnography prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 39, Rubin teaches that a wearable device comprises: a body that is flexible and extendable to encircle a portion of a user (Rubin, FIG. 1, 2A, 3, [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead, as shown in FIG. 1", showing a flexible body that encircles the head comprising a headband and electrode backing 212, which together provides pressing force; [0037]: "The headband 208 can be made of elastic, or other flexible fabric or materials that are also stretchable, to allow the headband 208 to fit snugly around the user's head. The circumference formed by the headband 208 may also be adjusted... The length of the ends 220 a and 220 b... may be varied to vary the circumference formed by the headband", confirms flexible and extendable construction); an electronics module (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0035]: "A support structure housing 210, also attached to the dry electrode backing 212, contains an electrode processor for processing the EEG signals detected by the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 and a wireless transmitter", teaches an electronics module on the flexible and extendable body); the electronics module attachable to the flexible and extendable body at a first connection point by a first flexible retention mount for rotation about a first axis and at a second connection point by a second flexible retention mount for rotation about a second axis to generate a force radially from the first axis and the second axis to draw the electronics module towards the portion of the user (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: "the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324...", shows that the housing is retained at both ends by snaps, which act as retention mounts at opposite ends of the module; FIG. 1, [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes...against the user's forehead", shows that the elastic strap connects to the ends of the electrode backing, and when tensioned around the head, the backing (and the module snapped onto it) is pulled toward the forehead; [0037]: "The headband 208 can be made of elastic...to allow the headband 208 to fit snugly around the user's head", confirms that strap elasticity provides the tension force, which is transmitted through the strap-to-backing connections and then through the snaps into the housing; Although Rubin does not use the word "rotation," under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of an elastic strap, strap-to-backing connections, and snap mounts allows pivoting of the strap relative to the housing at each end. This relative movement corresponds to the claimed "rotation about a first/second axis", while the strap tension is transferred radially through those mounts to draw the housing toward the user); a bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body between the first connection point and the second connection point to contact at least part of the portion of the user to receive bio-signals from the user (Rubin, FIG. 2B, [0035]: "The sensor 200 includes dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 ... A headband 208 ... can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user 's forehead...", showing that electrodes (i.e. sensors) on the band contact the user where the figure depicts the sensors between the connection points, [0031]: "for detecting electroencephalogram (EEG) signals", which are bio-signals); wherein the electronics module is positioned and supported structurally to urge the biosignal sensor into contact with the user (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: "the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324..."; the electronics module housing is structurally coupled to and positioned over the electrode backing, such that when the strap/backing is drawn snug against the head, the housing presses the electrodes to the head; [0035]: "A headband 208 is attached to opposite ends 214 a and 214 b of the electrode backing 212 and can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206 against the user's forehead", shows that when worn the strap/backing assembly (to which the housing is snapped) is pulled toward the head and presses the electrodes; [0037]: "A deformable padding, such as a deformable foam, may be disposed behind each dry electrode to help press the dry electrode against the user's skin", indicates padding is an intermediate cushion between the electrodes and the module that helps the pressing already produced by the housing/backing being drawn toward the head); and the electronics module comprises a processor for receiving the bio-signals from the bio-signal sensor (Rubin, [0035]: "A support structure housing 210... contains an electrode processor for processing the EEG signals detected by the dry electrodes 202, 204, and 206...", shows the module comprising a processor for receiving the signals).
Also regarding claim 39, Rubin does not expressly disclose that the electronics module has a concave surface; wherein a portion of the flexible and extendable body between the first connection point and the second connection point is shaped and arranged in a way such that when worn the portion of the flexible extendable body rotates towards the concave space and collapses into the concave space giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body a concave surface in contact with the user. Rather, Rubin discloses an electronics module attached to the backing/strap by snaps at its ends (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]). Rubin also teaches a flexible elastic headband “attached to opposite ends of the electrode backing… [that] can encircle the user's head to press the dry electrodes… against the user's forehead” (Rubin, FIG. 1, [0035]) and “made of elastic… to allow the headband… to fit snugly around the user's head” (Rubin, [0037]). This establishes that the strap stretches and applies tension around the head. However, Rubin does not describe the housing as having a concave underside, nor does it expressly disclose that the strap segment is shaped and arranged so that, when worn, it rotates inward and collapses into the concave space.
FCC external photos of the Zeo Sleep Manager depict the detachable electronics pod with an arched/curved (concave) underside across its length and end-mounted snaps for attachment to the headband strap (FCC, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101/1002126.pdf, pp. 1–4, FIGS. 1–4). FCC also shows that when the strap spans between those snap points, a recess (concave space) is created between the strap and the concave underside of the module (FCC, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101/1002125.pdf, p. 1, FIGS. 1–2). DCRainmaker further corroborates this by showing the Zeo headband in use, where the concave underside of the electronics pod and the strap spanning the end snaps visibly define the recessed space beneath the pod (DCRainmaker, FIG. 8; FIG. 20). When the device is worn, the elastic strap applies tension through the snap mounts at each end of the housing, permitting limited pivoting of the strap relative to the housing. In combination with the convex shape of the user's forehead pressing into the strap/backing, the strap span between the two end connections is urged inward, bowing and collapsing into the concave recess of the housing, corresponding to the claimed rotation towards and collapse into the concave space.
To the extent the claim further requires that this wear-state rotation and collapse results in “giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body a concave surface in contact with the user,” Aimone expressly teaches configuring a head-worn band assembly so that sensors disposed along a curved inner band portion conform to the user’s forehead shape under wear forces, including by providing a deformable attachment and biasing component that urges the sensor toward the forehead when worn (Aimone, [0007]: “at least one brainwave sensor disposed inwardly along the curved inner band portion… and a deformable attachment… allowing the inner band to conform to the user's forehead shape, the deformable attachment having a biasing component to urge the… sensor towards the user's forehead when worn by the user”). Aimone further teaches that when a force is applied from the user’s forehead, the inner band “flex[es] or deform[s]” by “(partially) collapsing” resilient spring arms that “bias the inner band towards the user’s forehead,” including where the spring aligns with the sensor position “to bias or urge the sensor… towards the user’s head” (Aimone, [0050]), and this conforming and collapsing behavior is illustrated in Aimone FIGS. 16–18 (Aimone, FIGS. 16–18; [0050]). Thus, Aimone makes explicit that a sensor-carrying band portion may be shaped and arranged to deform and conform to forehead curvature during wear, such that the contacting sensor region presents an overall concave surface profile in contact with the user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rubin in view of FCC and Aimone to contour the underside of the electronics module concavely between its two end snaps/connection points and to configure the strap portion and sensor region such that, when worn, the portion of the flexible extendable body between the connection points rotates toward and collapses into the concave space of the module in a manner that causes the sensor region to conform to the user’s forehead curvature, thereby giving the bio-signal sensor disposed on the flexible and extendable body an overall concave surface in contact with the user. The combination is feasible because Rubin and FCC disclose snap-mounted electronics housings at opposite ends of a flexible strap with strap tensioning during wear, and Aimone expressly discloses deformable and biasing structures arranged at sensor locations to permit deformation and conforming of a sensor-carrying band toward the user’s forehead when worn (Aimone, [0007]; [0050]). Further, the presence of padding or cushioning in the Zeo headband does not preclude such deformation and conforming behavior, as Aimone teaches that conforming and biasing of a sensor region may be implemented using a variety of deformable structures, including resilient attachments, springs, or compressible materials arranged to urge the sensor toward the user during wear (Aimone, [0007]; [0050]). The motivation would have been to improve comfort against the curved forehead, enhance electrode stability and contact reliability by seating and conforming the sensor region during wear, and reduce bulk, benefits Rubin itself emphasizes (snug fit, pressing electrodes, padding for comfort) and which are consistent with Aimone’s emphasis on conforming sensor regions for reliable signal acquisition (Aimone, [0007]; [0012]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US-20070249952-A1), hereto referred as Rubin, and further in view of FCC (FCC ID WH4ZEO101, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101, 9/17/2008, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as FCC, and DCRainmaker (DCRainmaker, Zeo – In Depth Product Review, www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/12/zeo-in-depth-product-review.html, 12/20/2010, accessed 8/24/2025), hereto referred as DCRainmaker, as evidence, and further in view of Aimone (US-20140347265-A1), hereto referred as Aimone, and Reiter (US 20190183187 A1), hereto referred as Reiter, as evidence.
Regarding claim 10, with respect to that the electronics module being attachable to the flexible and extendable body by a magnetic force, the modified Rubin teaches that the electronics module housing is attached to the electrode backing by metal snaps (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]: “the sensor 300 has a support structure housing 310 that is attached to a dry electrode backing 312 by metal snaps 324…”). The snaps in Rubin serve both as a retention mechanism and as an electrical pathway between the electrodes and the electronics housing. Rubin therefore teaches attachment of the module at both ends to the body by discrete coupling elements, but Rubin does not expressly disclose attachment by magnetic force. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Rubin’s snaps with magnetic couplers to attach the electronics module to the flexible strap/backing. Magnets are a well-known analogous coupling structure used in consumer electronics prior to the effective filing date, capable of providing both mechanical retention and, when plated or configured with conductive surfaces, electrical conduction between components (Reiter, Abstract: “electrically conductive magnetic snap fastener for releasably coupling a first material to a second material”). A person of ordinary skill in art would have recognized magnets as a predictable design alternative to snaps for achieving the same dual functions of retention and electrical connectivity. The combination is feasible because both Rubin’s snaps and plated magnetic couplers operate by securing two components together and permit current to pass across the interface. Substituting magnets for snaps would require no undue experimentation, as conductive magnets (e.g., nickel- or gold-plated neodymium magnets) were routinely available and used as electronic connectors. The motivation to make this substitution would have been to improve user convenience and durability: magnets allow easier attachment/detachment than mechanical snaps, reduce wear over multiple coupling cycles, and provide self-alignment for consistent electrode contact. These predictable benefits mirror Rubin’s own emphasis on ensuring snug fit and reliable sensor contact, and would have driven a person of ordinary skill in art to implement magnetic attachment in place of snaps.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rubin does not teach that the electronics module includes a first magnet at the first end to attach to the first flexible retention mount by magnetic force and a second magnet at the second end to attach to the second flexible retention mount by magnetic force. Rather, the modified Rubin shows the electronics module housing attached to the electrode backing by snaps at both ends (i.e. first and second ends) (Rubin, FIG. 3, [0038]). While these snaps serve as dual mechanical/electrical couplers, Rubin does not disclose that the couplers are magnets or that magnetic force is used to achieve attachment. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rubin’s snaps in view of known magnetic couplers so that each end of the electronics module includes a magnet attaching to a corresponding mount by magnetic force. Magnets were a well-known alternative coupling means used in consumer electronic connectors prior to the effective filing date, capable of providing secure attachment and, when plated or paired with conductive material, reliable signal transfer (Reiter, Abstract: “electrically conductive magnetic snap fastener for releasably coupling a first material to a second material”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized it as a predictable design choice to substitute a pair of magnets at opposite ends of the housing in place of the pair of snaps, performing the same coupling function. The combination is feasible because both Rubin’s snaps and magnets operate at discrete end connection points of the housing, and magnets can be readily integrated into the housing ends and the mating mounts. The motivation would have been to improve user convenience and durability by enabling easier attachment/detachment at both ends, reducing wear relative to snaps, and providing self-aligning functionality to ensure proper seating of the module against the strap and electrodes. These benefits are consistent with Rubin’s focus on reliable electrode contact and comfort, and would have driven a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement magnetic force attachment at both ends in place of snaps.
Claims 15 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US-20070249952-A1), hereto referred as Rubin, and further in view of FCC (FCC ID WH4ZEO101, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101, 9/17/2008, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as FCC, and DCRainmaker (DCRainmaker, Zeo – In Depth Product Review, www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/12/zeo-in-depth-product-review.html, 12/20/2010, accessed 8/24/2025), hereto referred as DCRainmaker, as evidence, and further in view of Aimone (US-20140347265-A1), hereto referred as Aimone, and further in view of Gustafsson (US-20150062322-A1), hereto referred as Gustafsson.
The modified Rubin teaches claim 1 as described above.
The modified Rubin teaches claim 12 as described above.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Rubin does not teach that the optical sensor is to detect a compression of the body based at least in part on a detected reflection distance of light reflected into the optical sensor. Rather, the modified Rubin teaches a headband-based wearable device with an electronics module with an optical sensor, as shown above in claim 12, but does not disclose that the optical sensor is used for detecting compression of the flexible body based on a reflection distance of light. Gustafsson describes head worn optical sensors with illuminators that emit light and image sensors that detect reflections from the user’s eye (Gustafsson, ¶[0032], ¶[0035]). Gustafsson further explains that the sensors can be used to determine the distance between the eye and the sensor based on reflected light (Gustafsson, ¶[0049]). This demonstrates that optical reflection distance can be used to measure spacing between the device and the user’s body. While Gustafsson applies this distance measurement to gaze tracking rather than compression, the principle disclosed is a reliable technique for determining the spacing between a device and a user’s tissue. In the context of Rubin’s flexible headband body, the spacing between the module and the underlying skin directly reflects how much the band is compressed. A shorter measured distance indicates greater compression of the band and electrodes, while a longer distance indicates less compression. Thus, adapting Gustafsson’s reflection-based distance measurement to Rubin’s module provides a quantitative way to monitor compression. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin in view of Gustafsson to configure the optical sensor to detect compression of the body based at least in part on a detected reflection distance of light reflected into the optical sensor. The combination is feasible because Rubin already provides a sensor module mounted directly on the wearable body, and Gustafsson shows how image sensors and illuminators can measure distance to a user via reflected light. Integrating Gustafsson’s distance-measuring optical sensor into the modified Rubin’s module would be a straightforward substitution and orientation of components. Adapting Gustafsson's principle to measure compression in Rubin’s headband device would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, representing a straightforward application of a known distance-measuring technique to monitor the compression state of the flexible body. The motivation to combine arises from the practical problem of ensuring consistent electrode contact and stable bio-signal acquisition in a headband-style wearable. Any loosening or excessive pressure of the flexible band can degrade signal quality or cause user discomfort. Gustafsson’s reflection-based distance sensing provides a way to quantify how tightly the device is pressed against the body, which directly corresponds to compression of the flexible body. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate this feature to improve the reliability of the system by monitoring and maintaining proper compression, thereby ensuring better signal quality and overall device performance.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Rubin does not teach that the wearable device further comprises at least one of a light emitter and a light receiver. Rather, the modified Rubin teaches a headband-based wearable device with an electronics housing for sensors and processors, as shown above in claim 1, but does not disclose inclusion of a light emitter or receiver. Gustafsson teaches wearable optical systems that include illuminators (light emitters) and image sensors (light receivers) mounted on a head-worn flex circuit (Gustafsson, ¶[0032], ¶[0035]). These explicitly provide the missing feature of a light emitter and/or light receiver. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Rubin’s headband-mounted module in view of Gustafsson to incorporate at least one light emitter and one light receiver. Rubin’s support structure housing already contains processing electronics, a transmitter, and power connections (Rubin, ¶[0015], ¶[0038]), making it a suitable location for integration of additional sensor types, such as those taught by Gustafsson, and Gustafsson’s illuminator and image sensor modules are designed for compact mounting on head-worn devices. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s focus on sleep monitoring, where it was already well established prior to the effective filing date that multimodal systems combined EEG electrodes with optical sensors such as pulse oximeters or actigraphy-based light detectors. Clinical polysomnography rigs routinely used EEG together with light-based oxygen saturation sensors, and consumer devices like Zeo, Fitbit, and Withings likewise paired EEG or motion tracking with optical monitoring. In this context, adding a light emitter and receiver as taught by Gustafsson would have been a straightforward and commonplace design choice to provide optical modalities such as motion, oxygenation, or proximity tracking. Such an addition would have predictably improved the comprehensiveness and reliability of Rubin’s sleep aid device in line with the ordinary practices of the field.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Rubin does not teach that the light receiver is disposed on the flexible and extendable body adjacent an eye of the user to detect light adjacent the eye of the user. Rather, the modified Rubin teach a head-worn device with electrodes, electronics housing, and optical emitters, as shown above in claim 22, but does not disclose placing a light receiver adjacent to the user’s eye on the flexible band itself. Gustafsson teaches a head-worn optical system with illuminators and image sensors mounted adjacent to the eye to illuminate and capture reflected light from the eye (Gustafsson, ¶[0007], ¶[0034]). These teachings supply the missing feature of disposing a light receiver adjacent to the eye of the user to detect light in that region. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified The modified Rubin in view of Gustafsson to place a light receiver directly on the flexible body of Rubin’s headband adjacent to the user’s eye, so that light reflected near the eye could be detected. The combination is feasible because Rubin’s flexible band already carries electrodes, demonstrating it is a sensor-bearing structure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it a straightforward adaptation to add Gustafsson’s light receiver to this same band near the eye, thereby providing the necessary proximity while using an existing part of the device designed to hold sensors. The motivation to combine arises from Rubin’s role as a sleep aid, where monitoring eye-adjacent signals such as eyelid movement or ocular blood flow is directly relevant to detecting REM sleep and other sleep states. Adding Gustafsson’s eye-adjacent optical sensing to Rubin’s band would predictably improve sleep monitoring accuracy, consistent with established polysomnography practices prior to the effective filing date.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US-20070249952-A1), hereto referred as Rubin, and further in view of FCC (FCC ID WH4ZEO101, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101, 9/17/2008, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as FCC, and DCRainmaker (DCRainmaker, Zeo – In Depth Product Review, www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/12/zeo-in-depth-product-review.html, 12/20/2010, accessed 8/24/2025), hereto referred as DCRainmaker, as evidence, and further in view of Aimone (US-20140347265-A1), hereto referred as Aimone, and further in view of Kwok (US-20090217929-A1), hereto referred as Kwok.
The modified Rubin teaches claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Rubin partially teaches that the flexible and extendable body of the wearable device comprises a compressible section adjacent to the bio-signal sensor to compress as to conform the bio-signal sensor to the portion of the user; wherein the compressible section is shaped to conform to the at least of the portion of the user; and wherein the compressible section comprises foam having variable density. Specifically, the modified Rubin teaches use of a compressible foam section behind each electrode to conform the bio-signal sensor to the user (Rubin, ¶[0036]). However, the modified Rubin does not disclose that the foam has variable density. Kwok teaches that a foam cushion for a patient interface can include multiple layers of different densities to improve conformance and comfort. (Kwok, ¶[0358]: “In an embodiment, the foam cushion 1504F may include multiple layers, e.g., a first layer constructed of a high density foam and a second layer constructed of a more compliant foam adapted to engage the patient's face”, expressly teaches variable density foam to conform to the user’s anatomy). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Rubin’s deformable foam padding in view of Kwok to employ a variable density foam adjacent to the electrodes. The combination is feasible because Rubin already employs foam padding to conform electrodes to the user’s skin, and Kwok teaches a known design practice of layering foams of different densities to optimize both conformability and comfort in a worn device. The motivation to make this substitution would be to improve electrode conformity and user comfort during sleep, ensuring more stable electrode contact and higher quality bio-signal acquisition. By incorporating Kwok’s variable density foam into Rubin’s headband, the device would provide predictable benefits of enhanced fit and usability in a sleep-monitoring wearable.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US-20070249952-A1), hereto referred as Rubin, and further in view of FCC (FCC ID WH4ZEO101, www.fcc.report/FCC-ID/WH4ZEO101, 9/17/2008, accessed 9/24/2025), hereto referred as FCC, and DCRainmaker (DCRainmaker, Zeo – In Depth Product Review, www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/12/zeo-in-depth-product-review.html, 12/20/2010, accessed 8/24/2025), hereto referred as DCRainmaker, as evidence, and further in view of Aimone (US-20140347265-A1), hereto referred as Aimone, and Sobol et al. (US-20190209022-A1), hereto referred as Sobol, as evidence.
Regarding claim 36, the modified Rubin implicitly teaches that the wearable device further comprises a communicator to transmit data to a computing device: wherein the communicator is configured to communicate with the computing device using at least one of a Bluetooth communications protocol and a Wi-Fi communications protocol. Rubin teaches wireless transmission of signals from the wearable device to a separate computing device (Rubin, ¶[0015], ¶[0031], ¶[0045]). However, the modified Rubin does not specify the use of Bluetooth or Wi-Fi protocols for this communication. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Rubin’s wireless communication system to employ standardized short-range communication protocols such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. These protocols were well known and widely used in consumer electronics and wearable devices before the filing date, providing reliable, low-power wireless communication between small wearable units and external computing devices (Sobol, Abstract” A wearable electronic device”; [0008]: “devices capable of long battery life (such as those that receive and send using conventional Bluetooth and WiFi-based approaches)”). The combination is feasible because Rubin already discloses a transmitter and receiver for wireless communication, and replacing or supplementing the unspecified wireless protocol with Bluetooth or Wi-Fi would have been a straightforward substitution of one known wireless technology for another. The motivation to combine arises from the predictable benefits of using standardized communication protocols: improved compatibility with existing computing devices, reduced power consumption, reliable data transmission, and simplified integration with consumer electronics ecosystems. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that employing Bluetooth or Wi-Fi would make Rubin’s sleep aid device more practical and interoperable, consistent with ordinary design practices in wearable technology prior to the effective filing date.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025, pages 7-9, regarding the previous 103 Rejections of claims 1-2, 5,7, 9-12, 15-16, 18, 22, 23-25, 28, 31, 36, and 39 have been fully 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. That is, there are new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the Zeo headband cited via the FCC photos and DCRainmaker includes padding that allegedly produces a convex surface, and therefore does not meet the amended limitation requiring that wear of the device results in “giving the bio-signal sensor … a concave surface in contact with the user.” The Examiner notes that the rejection has been updated to apply Aimone to the amended limitation. Aimone expressly teaches arranging a sensor-carrying inner band and associated attachment structures so that, when worn, the sensor region deforms and conforms to the user’s forehead shape under wear forces, including via deformable attachments and biasing components that urge the sensor toward the user during wear (Aimone, ¶[0007]; ¶[0050]; FIGS. 16–18). Accordingly, even assuming the presence of cushioning in the Zeo headband, such cushioning does not preclude the sensor-carrying portion from deforming and conforming during wear in the manner taught by Aimone.
Applicant further argues that the FCC and DCRainmaker evidence does not show the claimed concave space and wear-state deformation. The Examiner disagrees. FCC external photos depict the electronics pod having an arched underside and end-mounted snaps, with the strap spanning between the end snaps across the underside to define a recessed region beneath the pod (FCC, External Photos, pp. 1–4, FIGS. 1–4; p. 1, FIGS. 1–2). DCRainmaker further corroborates the wear-state configuration by depicting the pod seated on the forehead with the strap spanning between the end connections over the recessed region beneath the pod (DCRainmaker, FIG. 8; FIG. 20). Rubin teaches an elastic headband that fits snugly around the user’s head and presses the electrodes against the forehead (Rubin, ¶[0035]; ¶[0037]). Additionally, Aimone’s FIGS. 16–18 depict an inner sensor-carrying band spaced from an outer band by deformable attachment structures, thereby defining a recessed region between the bands that accommodates inward deformation of the sensor region during wear, further corroborating that the applied art teaches sensor regions that deform into a concave wear-state configuration. In view of Rubin’s tensioned headband configuration and FCC’s recessed pod geometry, and as made explicit by Aimone’s conforming and biasing teachings, it would have been obvious to configure the strap portion and sensor region such that, when worn, the sensor-carrying portion deforms inward toward the recessed region and conforms to the curvature of the user’s forehead, thereby meeting the amended limitation.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments were directed to the prior rejection’s reliance on FCC and DCRainmaker without the additional explicit conforming and biasing teachings now applied, such arguments are not persuasive because the rejection has been updated to apply Aimone to the amended limitation (Aimone, ¶[0007]; ¶[0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MERRIAM whose telephone number is (703) 756-
5938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 (571)272-4867. 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.
/AARON MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791