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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, line 16 recites “…plurality of electrodes is arranged…”. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “…plurality of electrodes [[is]] are arranged…”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the skull" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the skull" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manoli et al (US 2001/0044573) hereinafter Manoli.
Regarding claim 1, Manoli discloses an electrode support device for recording electroencephalographic signals (Fig. 1), comprising:
a cap (cap portion 111) configured to cover at least a majority of the skull of a patient (Fig. 1 shows locator headgear 110 containing cap portion 111 being configured to cover a majority of the skull), so that said cap has an inner surface in contact with the patient's scalp [0031],
wherein said cap is further configured to place, in pre-defined zones, a plurality of electrodes (EEG electrodes) in contact with the patient's scalp ([0031] a plurality of EEG electrode locators 112 on locator straps 124 for receiving EEG electrodes),
wherein said cap is made from a flexible polymeric material ([0034] stretch mesh and locator straps are preferably made of elastic material), and
wherein said cap has first holes (EEG electrode locators 112) defined therein, said first holes being configured to receive said plurality of electrodes ([0031] EEG electrode locators 112 for receiving EEG electrodes), and
further has second holes and/or cuts (stretch mesh cap 146) defined therein, so as to create discontinuity zones within said cap [0034],
at least a majority of said second holes and/or cuts being smaller than said first holes (Figs. 1-2 shows mesh cap 146 having smaller holes than EEG electrode locators 112), and
forming discontinuity zones within said cap so as to define a mesh (stretch mesh) and increase a stretching of said cap [0034].
Regarding claim 5, Manoli discloses wherein said discontinuity zones are homogeneously distributed on a surface of said cap (Fig. 1 shows mesh cap 146 homogenously distributing discontinuity zones; [0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoli (US 2001/0044573) in view of Goldstein et al (US 2018/0235541) hereinafter Goldstein.
Regarding claim 2, Manoli discloses wherein said second holes and/or cuts have triangular or polygonal shapes ([0034] Figs. 1-3 show stretch meshwork cap 146; Examiner notes the mesh cap contains polygonal holes/and or cuts), but fails to disclose wherein said flexible polymeric material consists of a transparent material.
However, Goldstein discloses an EEG cap consisting of a transparent material ([0074] The EEG apparatus 100 may be transparent or clear). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Manoli to consist of a transparent material as taught by Goldstein, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing electrodes to be seen, which may facilitate proper positioning (Goldstein, [0074]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoli (US 2001/0044573) in view of Badower et al (US 2016/0007918) hereinafter Badower.
Regarding claim 3, Manoli discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein said flexible polymeric material consists of a polyurethane. However, Badower discloses wherein said flexible polymeric material consists of a polyurethane ([0084] The example strips 106-114 and the central support member 116 of the illustrated example are constructed of a flexible material such as, for example, polyurethane). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Manoli with said flexible polymeric material consisting of a polyurethane as taught by Badower since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the cap to sit comfortably and closely to the scalp of the user to allow the electrodes to engage the surface of the scalp, resulting in better contact and signal collection (Badower, [0084]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoli (US 2001/0044573).
Regarding claim 6, Manoli discloses discontinuity zones extending on a surface of the cap (Fig. 1 shows mesh cap 146 homogenously distributing discontinuity zones; [0034]), but fails to expressly disclose wherein said discontinuity zones extend between 5% and 25% of a total surface of said cap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the discontinuity zones as taught by Manoli with said discontinuity zones extending between 5% and 25% of a total surface of said cap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoli (US 2001/0044573) in view of Ayer (US 4353372), as evidenced by Mistretta (US 2020/0069934).
Regarding claim 8, Manoli discloses an electrode support device (Fig. 1) for recording electroencephalographic signals, comprising:
a cap (cap portion 111) configured to cover at least a majority of the skull of a patient (Fig. 1 shows locator headgear 110 containing cap portion 111 being configured to cover a majority of the skull), so that said cap has an inner surface in contact with the patient's scalp [0031]; and
a plurality of electrodes (EEG electrodes) in contact with the patient's scalp, the plurality of electrodes being disposed on an inner surface of said cap in predetermined zones ([0031] a plurality of EEG electrode locators 112 on locator straps 124 for receiving EEG electrodes for positioning on the scalp),
wherein said cap is made from a flexible polymeric material ([0034] stretch mesh and locator straps are preferably made of elastic material),
wherein said cap has first holes (EEG electrode locators 112) defined therein,
said first holes being configured to receive said plurality of electrodes ([0031] EEG electrode locators 112 for receiving EEG electrodes), and further has second holes and/or cuts (stretch mesh cap 146) defined therein, so as to create discontinuity zones within said cap [0034],
at least a majority of said second holes and/or cuts being smaller than said first holes (Figs. 1-2 shows mesh cap 146 having smaller holes than EEG electrode locators 112) and forming discontinuity zones within said cap so as to define a mesh (stretch mesh) and increase a stretching of said cap [0034].
Manoli discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose expressly the entirety of areas of said discontinuity zones extends for a minority of an area covered by said cap. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Manoli with the entirety of areas of said discontinuity zones extends for a minority of an area covered by said cap, because Applicant has not disclosed that entirety of areas of said discontinuity zones extends for a minority of an area covered by said cap provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the stretch mesh cap as taught by Manoli, because it provides the ability to bias the electrode locators and electrodes with a downward biasing pressure toward the user's scalp, to provide a stable electrode-scalp interface capable of producing a high signal quality (Manoli, [0034]) and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Manoli. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Manoli to obtain the invention as specified in the claim(s).
Manoli fails to disclose wherein said plurality of electrodes is arranged as an electrode assembly having a plurality of branches extending from a main conductive track, each branch having a contact portion and a transmission portion, each branch further having a flexible support element of a conductive element, said flexible support element having a head terminal and a tail terminal, and
wherein said conductive element has at least one head contact and at least one tail contact, respectively arranged at the head terminal and the tail terminal of the flexible support element,
said conductive element being provided as a separate conductive track consisting of a single layer of conductive ink deposited directly on said flexible support element.
Ayer discloses wherein said plurality of electrodes is arranged as an electrode assembly (CG cable set 20) having of a plurality of branches (leads 31-36) extending from a main conductive track (common trunk 40),
each branch having a contact portion (attachment pad 21) and a transmission portion (conductive pad 49; Col. 4, ln 57-62),
each branch further having a flexible support element (Col. 3, ln 50: flexible outer layers 44 and 46) of a conductive element (Col. 5, ln 17: conductive ink layer 48),
said flexible support element having a head terminal (Fig. 2: outer layers 44 and 46 of attachment pad 26) and a tail terminal (connector 42; Col. 5, ln 11-13: The flat, flexible sandwich design is carried through to branch leads 31-36, common trunk 40, and connector 42) and
wherein said conductive element has at least one head contact (connection of conductive ink layer 48 with conductive pad 49; Col. 3, ln 53-54: Leading away from conductive pad 49 is a thin line of material 48) and
at least one tail contact (Col. 6, ln 18-25: interior conductor 48 extends to establish electrical communication with a respective one of contacts 72), respectively arranged at the head terminal and the tail terminal of the flexible support element (See annotated Fig. 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
533
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
said conductive element being provided as a separate conductive track (ink layer 48) consisting of a single layer of conductive ink deposited directly on said flexible support element (Col. 3, ln 61-63: conductive inner layer 48, 49 is printed on Mylar sheet 46 with conductive ink).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Manoli with wherein said plurality of electrodes is arranged as an electrode assembly having a plurality of branches extending from a main conductive track, each branch having a contact portion and a transmission portion, each branch further having a flexible support element of a conductive element, said flexible support element having a head terminal and a tail terminal, and wherein said conductive element has at least one head contact and at least one tail contact, respectively arranged at the head terminal and the tail terminal of the flexible support element, said conductive element being provided as a separate conductive track consisting of a single layer of conductive ink deposited directly on said flexible support element as taught by Ayer. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of further increasing the cost-effectiveness related to the production of the patient contact portion, thanks to the low cost of ink with a high magnetic charge such as a nickel ink [0054] as evidenced by Mistretta.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Manoli discloses the system of claim 8 as discussed above, but fails to disclose a means for fixing said contact portion of said branches to edges of said through holes of the cap. However, Ayer discloses a means for fixing said contact portion of said branches to edges of said through holes of the cap (Figure 3; Col. 5, ln 4-5: Surface 62A of ring 62 and 52C of 52 is secured adhesively to the skin of the patient; Examiner notes that this adhesive would be capable of fixing the contact portion to the edges of the through holes). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Manoli with a means for fixing said contact portion of said branches to edges of said through holes of the cap as taught by Ayer since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the electrodes to be accurately placed and maneuvered as needed.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoli (US 2001/0044573) in view of Li et al (US 2021/0361235) hereinafter Li as evidenced by Mistretta (US 2020/0069934).
Regarding claim 10, Manoli discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein said inner surface or an outer surface of the cap has a plurality of conductive tracks made of at least one conductive ink layer. However, Li discloses wherein said inner surface or an outer surface of the cap (electroencephalogram cap) has a plurality of conductive tracks ([0048] cap includes electrode array 2 which includes conductive trace 22) made of at least one conductive ink layer ([0071] conductive traces 22 are made by a conductive ink; Fig. 16). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system as taught by Manoli with said inner surface or an outer surface of the cap has a plurality of conductive tracks made of at least one conductive ink layer as taught by Li. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of increasing the cost-effectiveness related to the production of the conductive tracks, thanks to the low cost of ink with a high magnetic charge such as a nickel ink [0054] as evidenced by Mistretta.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights