Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/2/2025. Currently claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claims 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claims 15-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to previous rejection of claims 15-16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 15-16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-7, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1-3 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong
claim(s) 4-6 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber
claim 15 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babkin
claim 16 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin in view of Wong
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with the addition of Bozkurt et al (US 20170224280) for some of the claims the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed see pgs. 5-7, filed 12/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 7, 11 and 13-14 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber
claim(s) 8-10 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber in view of Sadeghian-Motahar.
claim(s) 12 rejected as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber in view of Lee
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The crux of applicant’s arguments is that Wong in view of Macia Barber (the prior art used to rejection claim 7, the independent claim of this group of claims) fails to disclose forming the electrode from polymeric filaments whose conductivity arises from dispersed filler within the filament itself.
As applicant argues:
“However, claim 7, as clarified, specifies a knitted textile electrode in which each filament comprises a thermoplastic elastomer blended with a conductive filler. Wong employs molded pads, while Macia Barber teaches metal-coated or metallic yarns. The cited documents do not appear to disclose or suggest forming the electrode from polymeric filaments whose conductivity arises from dispersed filler within the filament itself. Adapting the molded electrodes of Wong to a knitted construction of filler-loaded filaments would entail changes that the references neither contemplate nor address.” [see pgs. 6-7 of applicant’s arguments received on 12/2/2025].
In response these arguments are not persuasive because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claims. Nothing in the claim as currently written (i.e. set of claims received on 12/2/2025) requires that electrode have a structural configuration that provides conductivity that arise from the dispersed filler within the filament itself. While a limitation closer to what applicant argues is found in the specification [see para 54 of applicant’s specification received on 6/28/2022] the claim only requires the thermoplastic elastomer be blended with one or more conductive fillers omitting the argued “whose conductivity arises from dispersed filler within the filament itself” Thus, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate to the scope of the claims. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and while the rejection has been updated to account for changes in language, the rejection remains substantially the same as previously.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al (US 20190134393) hereafter known as Wong in view of Macia Barber et al (US 20170296123) hereafter known as Macia Barber.
Independent claim:
Claim 1:
Wong discloses:
An electrode [see Figs. 9B and para “FIGS. 9A-9H illustrate various embodiments of dry electrodes”] comprising:
a contact layer [see Figs 9B element 104 and para 94… “a conductive skin contact layer 104”] comprising
a first filament, the first filament comprising a thermoplastic elastomer [see para 96… “the skin contact layer 104 is disposed, layered or coated over the base layer 102 and may include any moldable polymer, rubber, or plastic, including but not limited to silicone, rubber, or thermoplastic urethane.” Which discloses thermoplastic urethane (i.e. a type of thermoplastic elastomer)] blended with a conductive filler [see Fig. 9B and para 96… “the skin contact layer 104 is disposed, layered or coated over the base layer 102 and may include any moldable polymer, rubber, or plastic, including but not limited to silicone, rubber, or thermoplastic urethane. The material could be loaded with one or more conductive fillers including but not limited to metal, carbon (e.g., carbon nanotubes or carbon black), graphite, and metal coated particles (e.g., metal-coated, such as silver-coated glass microspheres or bubbles).” and see para 97… “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 9B, the conductive filler material can be in a fiber form.” discloses a filler material in the contact layer as recited]
However, Wong fails to disclose that the contact layer includes a knitted textile. Thus, Wong fails to fully disclose “a knitted textile formed from a first filament”
Macia Barber discloses in the analogous art of electrode devices [see para 8… “The present invention solves the problems described above by providing a sensor comprising, in at least one embodiment an electrode, a track and an electrical connector, wherein, the track is comprising an electrically conductive flexible and elastic material”] using knitted fabric (i.e. knitted textile) [para 45… “The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.”] with a contact layer that includes a conductive silver yarn [see Para 58… “electrode 2 refers to a conductive fabric made of conductive fibers. In an embodiment, a conductive fiber is made of silver coated nylon (such as X-STATIC® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries) and a non-conductive fiber is made of nylon.”] for the purpose of avoiding the use adhesives or other connecting elements that could produce skin irritations [see para 7… “The development of a sensor and a garment comprising a sensor with flexibility and elasticity which allows recording physiological signals, especially in movement, with improved adhesion properties but avoiding adhesive elements which produce skin irritations is of great interest.”].
It would have been obvious to modify Wong’s contact layer to include a knitted fabric that includes filaments of conductive silver fiber between the skin the rest of the contact layer similarly to that disclosed by Macia Barber for the purpose of providing a good attachment of the electrode device to the body while reducing skin irritations.
Regarding claim 2:
Wong in view of Macia Barber discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 above. Also, Wong in view of Macia Barber discloses a contact layer that includes layer of silver yarn [see rejection to claim 1 above].
However, Wong in view of Macia Barber is silent as to the electrical resistance and elastic recovery and therefore fails to disclose “first filament has a linear electrical resistance of 1-100 kΩ/m and an elastic recovery of at least 150%.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Wong in view of Macia Barber to achieve the claimed combination of a “first filament has a linear electrical resistance of 1-100 kΩ/m and an elastic recovery of at least 150%.” because absent unpredictable results one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combination through routine experimentation of different factors when optimizing the contact layer to reach a specific desired outcome.
Regarding Claim 3, see Fig. 9B and para 96 [“the skin contact layer 104 is disposed, layered or coated over the base layer 102 and may include any moldable polymer, rubber, or plastic, including but not limited to silicone, rubber, or thermoplastic urethane. The material could be loaded with one or more conductive fillers including but not limited to metal, carbon (e.g., carbon nanotubes or carbon black), graphite, and metal coated particles (e.g., metal-coated, such as silver-coated glass microspheres or bubbles).”] and para 97 [see “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 9B, the conductive filler material can be in a fiber form.”] discloses a second filament in the form of filler conductive material that is in fiber form (i.e. a second filament comprising a conductive filament) as recited by claim 3.
Regarding claims 4-6, see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses Wong in view of Macia Barber as including filaments of conductive silver fiber between the skin the rest of the contact layer (i.e. claims 4-6).
Independent claim:
Claim 7:
Wong discloses:
An apparatus [see abstract… “Disclosed herein are systems, devices, and methods for peripheral nerve stimulation, particularly for treating tremor.”] comprising:
a base layer [see Fig. 7 element 808 and para 68.… “the wearable band 800, which may have a receptacle 808 for receiving the strip 806.”] integrated with an article [see Fig. 7 element 800 (i.e. an article) and para 88… “the wearable band 800, which may have a receptacle 808 for receiving the strip 806.”];
an electrode and mounted adjacent to a conductive layer [see Figs. 7 and 9 and paras 88; elements 802 and 804 (i.e. electrodes) are positioned on element 806 (i.e. conductive layer), both the electrode and conductive layer mounted on the base layer [see Fig. 7 elements 802, 804 and 806 (i.e. electrodes and conductive layer) on element 808 (i.e. band which is previously identified as base layer)];
an active electrode board in electrical communication with the conductive layer and the electrode, the active electrode board configured receive and/or send electrical signals from the electrode [see Fig. 7 and para 88… “The strip 806 and the band 800 can have electrical contacts and a flexible circuit so that the electrodes are electrically connected to the controller 810” A flexible circuit is at least an active electrode board as claimed.]
wherein the electrode comprises filaments or filament yarn comprising thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) blended with one or more conductive fillers [see Fig. 9B and para 55… “FIGS. 9A-9H illustrate various embodiments of dry electrodes” and para 96… “the skin contact layer 104 is disposed, layered or coated over the base layer 102 and may include any moldable polymer, rubber, or plastic, including but not limited to silicone, rubber, or thermoplastic urethane. The material could be loaded with one or more conductive fillers including but not limited to metal, carbon (e.g., carbon nanotubes or carbon black), graphite, and metal coated particles (e.g., metal-coated, such as silver-coated glass microspheres or bubbles).” and para 97…. “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 9B, the conductive filler material can be in a fiber form.” Which discloses thermoplastic urethane (i.e. a type of thermoplastic elastomer) with conductive filler fibers (i.e. filaments or filament yard)]
However, Wong fails to disclose “the filaments or filament yarn knitted into a textile”
Macia Barber discloses in the analogous art of electrode devices [see para 8… “The present invention solves the problems described above by providing a sensor comprising, in at least one embodiment an electrode, a track and an electrical connector, wherein, the track is comprising an electrically conductive flexible and elastic material”] using an electrode that includes a conductive silver yarn [see Para 58… “electrode 2 refers to a conductive fabric made of conductive fibers. In an embodiment, a conductive fiber is made of silver coated nylon (such as X-STATIC® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries) and a non-conductive fiber is made of nylon.”] for the purpose of avoiding the use adhesives or other connecting elements that could produce skin irritations [see para 7… “The development of a sensor and a garment comprising a sensor with flexibility and elasticity which allows recording physiological signals, especially in movement, with improved adhesion properties but avoiding adhesive elements which produce skin irritations is of great interest.”].
It would have been obvious to modify Wong’s electrode by placing filaments of conductive silver fiber between the skin the rest of the electrode similarly to that disclosed by Macia Barber (i.e. the filaments or filament yarn knitted into a textile) for the purpose of providing a good attachment of the electrode device to the body while reducing possible skin irritations.
Regarding claim 11, see Figs. 5A-5G and para 78 of Wong [see “the stimulation waveform is biphasic and charge balanced as shown in FIGS. 5A-5G. A biphasic waveform has a phase of a first polarity (e.g., positive current) and a phase of the opposite polarity (e.g., negative current).”] which discloses how electrodes produce electrical currents when coupled to a user (i.e. converts ionic current at a skin-electrode interface to electric signals).
Regarding claim 13, see para 46 of Wong [see “Activation of the device delivers electrical current through the dry electrodes to the desired locations on the skin. The desired locations may be adjacent one or more target nerves.”] which discloses the dry electrodes (i.e. the electrode) apply current as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 7 above which recites an article in the form of a band and a band is at least an article of clothing
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sadeghian-Motahar et al (US 20160089045 cited as reference 3 in US patent application publications in applicant’s IDS received on 6/28/2022) hereafter known as Sadeghian-Motahar.
Wong in view of Macia Barber discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 7 which includes an active electrode board.
However, Wong in view of Macia Barber is silent as to how the active electrode board is connected to other elements or if it has a shield. Thus, Wong in view of Macia Barber fails to disclose “a first overmould of the active electrode board” as recited by claim 8, “a shield mounted over or inside the overmould of the active electrode board” as recited by claim 9 or “a second overmould over the first overmould and the shield, the second overmould connecting to the base layer” as recited by claim 10.
Another embodiment of Wong discloses placing the electronics (i.e. inclusive of active electrode board) within a housing (i.e. a shield) [see Fig. 1A-1E element 12 or Wong and para 68 of Wong… “In some embodiments, electronics are located in a housing 12.”] and that the scope of Wong includes combinations of different embodiments [see para 129… “This disclosure is intended to cover any and all adaptations or variations of various embodiments. Combinations of the above embodiments, and other embodiments not specifically described herein, will be apparent to those of skill in the art upon reviewing the above description.”].
Sadeghian-Motahar discloses in the analogous art of electrode devices [see abstract… “This invention is directed to materials and devices for sensing bio-potential signals from animals, particularly to sensing bio-potential signals to monitor humans in the medical field.” And “The bio-potential sensor may generally include a dry electrode that may be placed in contact with the skin of an animal to receive bio-potential signals from the animal.”] a known way to attach different elements together is to use an overmold of a polymeric material [see para 34… “The polymeric material 102 may further be mounted, coated onto, overmolded onto and/or otherwise fixed to a structural element, such as a fabric and/or mesh screen, as illustrated with polymeric material 102 molded around screen 106 as shown in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 1a.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wong in view of Macia Barber in view of Sadeghian-Motahar by placing the flexible circuit (i.e. the active electrode board) into a housing similarly to that disclosed by another embodiment of Wong (i.e. a shield mounted) because this is a subcombination of different combinations disclosed by Wong.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wong in view of Macia Barber to connect the flexible circuit to the electrode via an overmold (i.e. thereby reciting “a first overmould of the active electrode board” as recited by claims 8) and to connect the shield to the electrode board and the rest of the device via a second overmold similarly to that disclosed by Sadeghian-Motahar (i.e. thereby reciting “a shield mounted over or inside the overmould of the active electrode board” as recited by claim 9 and “a second overmould over the first overmould and the shield, the second overmould connecting to the base layer” as recited by claim 10) because as taught by Sadeghian-Motahar this is a known way to attach different elements of electrode device together
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Macia Barber as applied to claims 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20180092565 cited as reference 2 in US patent application publications in applicant’s IDS received on 6/28/2022) hereafter known as Lee.
Won in view of Macia Barber discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 7 and 11 as outlined above which includes an active electrode board that receives and sends electrical signals of the electrode.
However, Wong in view of Macia Barber is silent to the details as to all the active electrode board and thus, Wong in view of Macia Barber fails to disclose “wherein the active electrode board comprises a preamplifier for increasing signal strength from the electrode when the electrode is coupled to a user” as recited as claim 12.
Lee discloses in the analogous art of electrostimulation devices [see para 2… “Embodiments of the inventive concept described herein relate to a medical device, and more particularly, relate to an electrical stimulation and bio-potential measurement device.”] that signal processing devices (i.e. active electrode board) are known to include filters and an amplifier (i.e. preamplifier for increasing signal strength) [see Fig. 5 and para 40-41… “Referring to FIG. 5, a signal processing unit 220 may include a high pass filter (HPF) 221 for filtering an EEG signal received from a first electrode module 110 and an amplifier 222 for amplifying the signal filtered by the HPF 221. Elements of the main body module 200 may be prevented from being damaged as part of current for electrical stimulation unintentionally flows to a main body module 200 in an electrical stimulation mode by providing the HPF 221.”]
Since Wong in view of Macia Barber is silent to all the structures of the active electrode board, and Lee discloses a known structure for an electrode board includes filters and an amplifier that increase signal strength, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wong in view of Macia Barber’s electrode board to include filters and amplifier similarly to that disclosed by Lee (i.e. thereby reciting “wherein the active electrode board comprises a preamplifier for increasing signal strength from the electrode when the electrode is coupled to a user”) as this is a known structure for a known processing device for electrostimulation devices.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozkurt et al (US 20170224280) hereafter known as Bozkurt.
Regarding claim 15:
A method of manufacturing a filament for a textile electrode [see para 40… “In yet a further embodiment, the invention provides a method of manufacturing an array of sensors. The method comprises extruding a plurality of first multi-component strands, extruding a plurality of second multi-component strands”], the method comprising:
providing thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) polymer pellets [see Fig. 1 “pellets” and para 85-86…. “Some of the candidate fiber forming polymers“ and “The polypropylene, and polyamide resins are available in a wide variety of MFRs and therefore can be potentially used to fabricate CoMFi with some variation in key properties. Thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) offer another viable choice.”] having material properties selected to provide (i) a melt flow suitable for melt-spinning [see Fig. 1 which shows “pellets” going into “Hopper” and “heaters” (i.e. melt-spinning)];
compounding the TPE polymer pellets with conductive filler to form a conductive TPE [see Fig. 1 “polymer”, “conducting” and “insulating” and para 36… “The first set of strands include a plurality of first multi-component strands, each of the first multi-component strands including a conductive portion and a non-conductive portion.”];
melt-spinning the conductive TPE through a spinneret to form a monofilament [see Fig. 1 “Hopper” (i.e. spinneret), heaters (i.e. melt-spinning) and “polymer” (i.e. monofilament);
However, Bozkurt is silent as to the elastic recover and fails to disclose “an elastic recovery of at least 100%”. Therefore, Bozkurt fails to fully disclose having material properties selected to provide (i) a melt flow suitable for melt-spinning and (ii) an elastic recovery of at least 100%”. Also, Bozkurt fails to disclose “knitting the monofilament into a textile electrode” or “drawing the monofilament to a diameter of 100-500 μm”
Macia Barber discloses in the analogous art of electrode devices [see para 8… “The present invention solves the problems described above by providing a sensor comprising, in at least one embodiment an electrode, a track and an electrical connector, wherein, the track is comprising an electrically conductive flexible and elastic material”] using knitted fabric (i.e. e “knitting the monofilament into a textile electrode”) [para 45… “The fabric may, for example, be manufactured by means of weaving, braiding, knitting or any other known method in the art.”] with using a conductive silver yarn [see Para 58… “electrode 2 refers to a conductive fabric made of conductive fibers. In an embodiment, a conductive fiber is made of silver coated nylon (such as X-STATIC® yarns from Laird Sauquoit Industries) and a non-conductive fiber is made of nylon.”] for the purpose of avoiding the use adhesives or other connecting elements that could produce skin irritations [see para 7… “The development of a sensor and a garment comprising a sensor with flexibility and elasticity which allows recording physiological signals, especially in movement, with improved adhesion properties but avoiding adhesive elements which produce skin irritations is of great interest.”].
It would have been obvious to modify Bozkurt’s filament to include a knitted fabric that includes with silver fibers similarly to that disclosed by Macia Barber (i.e. thereby reciting “knitting the monofilament into a textile electrode”) for the purpose of providing a good attachment of the electrode device to the body while reducing skin irritations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Bozkurt in view of Macia Barber to achieve the claimed combination of a “an elastic recovery of at least 100%” and “drawing the monofilament to a diameter of 100-500 μm” because absent unpredictable results one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combination through routine experimentation of different factors when optimizing the filament to reach the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 16, rejection to claim 15 above which discloses using silver fibers (i.e. biocompatible).
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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792