DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to amendments, filed December 23, 2025, claims 1, 16, 29, and 32 have been amended. Claims 8 and 27 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 5, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23, 29, and 31-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive, however there is a new claim objection in view of the amendments. The previous objection to claim 27 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combinations of Puttilli (US 20180263523 A1), Oakley (US 20160354005 A1), and Washbon (WO 2008109694 A1). Any arguments still relevant based on the new grounds of rejection are addressed below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the upper lateral mounting members from Puttilli, arms 160 and 180, do not terminate above an eye socket of a patient, in use, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 5 shows arm 160 to terminate above the eye socket of the user wearing the apparatus, and Fig. 1 shows arm 180 to mirror arm 160 and the gap between the two arms, showing where they terminate.
In response to applicant’s argument that Oakley does not disclose a plurality of discrete upper lateral mounting member portions, wherein each upper lateral mounting member portion is rotatably connected to an adjacent upper lateral mounting member portion, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Oakley, the electrode stations 14, each with a flap 40, are discrete upper lateral mounting member portions rotatably connected via strips 16, as shown in annotated Fig. 17 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
1203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 17 from Oakley (US 20160354005 A1), plurality of rotatably connected upper lateral mounting member portions annotated in red
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “rotatbly” should be “rotatably.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“rotatable connecting means” in claims 1, 21, 22 – Pg 9 [2] “The mounting members2 are rotatably attached to the base member1 by rotatable connecting means5, for example a hinge. The rotation of each mounting member may be such that an end of the mounting member distal the axis of rotation may move substantially radially relative to the patient's skull. In some embodiments the rotatable connections between the base member1 and the mounting members2 may lie on or adjacent a notional circle or ellipse, and the axes of rotation may be substantially tangential to the circle or ellipse.”
“biasing means” in claims 1 – Pg 9 [4] “In one embodiment the biasing means may comprise a torsion spring.”
“electrode engaging means” in claims 2, 27, 29 – Pg 11 [4] “Referring back to Figures 6-10 in particular, at least one of the mounting members2 comprises at least one electrode engaging means9, e.g. an electrode mount. In examples, each mounting member2 comprises an electrode engaging means9. In further examples, each mounting member2 comprises a plurality of electrode engaging means9 or mounts.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2, 5, 10-13, 15-19, 21-23, 29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puttilli (US 20180263523 A1) in view of Oakley (US 20160354005 A1) and Washbon (WO 2008109694 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Puttilli teaches an EEG headset comprising a base member configured to be located in use, on a patient's sagittal plane and over at least a portion of the patient's parietal and/or occipital bones in use, the base member comprising a patient side and a non-patient side, the headset further comprising a plurality of mounting members (portable device for EEG 100; central portion 110, Fig. 1; Fig. 5) comprising:
a pair of lower lateral mounting members (arms 170 and 190);
a pair of upper lateral mounting members (arms 160 and 180).
However, Puttilli fails to disclose a plurality of discrete upper lateral mounting member portions rotatably connected.
Oakley teaches an apparatus for use in connection with receiving signals from a human subject's head through the scalp thereof includes a removable headset having a plurality of electrode stations and intermediate portions. Oakley discloses:
each upper lateral mounting member comprising a plurality of discrete upper lateral mounting member portions ([0060] “the cap 12 is a “webbed” cap and includes a plurality of electrode stations 14 and a plurality of intermediate portions, or strips, 16, for capping the area 104 of the subject's scalp 102 to be tested or measured (the “scalp test area” 104).” [0072] “Referring again to FIGS. 4-5, the flaps 40 may be engaged with the headset 12 in any suitable manner. For example, each flap 40 may be releasably or permanently fastened to an electrode station 14 and/or one or more strips 16 with flap fasteners 48.”),
wherein each upper lateral mounting member portion is rotatably connected to an adjacent upper lateral mounting member portion, wherein each upper lateral mounting member portion is biased to rotate towards the patient side of the base member ([0069] “In many embodiments, some or all of the strips 16 may be constructed and configured to enhance the flexibility of the strips 16 and headset 12, allow the strips 16 to be compressed or conform to the shape of the subject's head 98 or a combination thereof. For example, one or more of the strips 16 may include one or more flex points 122 formed or provided therein. In the illustrated example, each flex point 122 is a break in the outer layer 16b of some of the strips 16. In other embodiments, such as shown in FIG. 6, the illustrated flex point 122 is a bend or fold in the strip 16.” [0079] “cables, 112 extending from each side 116, 117 of the headset 12, or along the rim 18, may be selectively tightened and/or loosened… ratcheting spool 120 is rotated to draw in and tension the cable 112 and draw the headset sides 116, 117 toward the rear.” Fig. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Puttilli to include a plurality of discrete upper lateral mounting member portions rotatably biased toward the patient as disclosed in Oakley to assist in preserving the conformance of the headset to the subject's head (Oakley [0069]).
The combination of Puttilli/Oakley discloses:
each upper lateral mounting member configured to overlie at least a portion of the patient's frontal bones in use, and wherein an end of each upper lateral mounting member terminates above an eye socket of a patient, in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; arms 160 and 180); and a central upper mounting member (Puttilli: arm 120, arm 130),
wherein each mounting member is rotatably connected to the base member by respective rotatable connecting means (Puttilli: [0051] “device 100 may include biasing means (not shown) associated to the axes about which the arms 120, 130, 140, 150 pivoted on the central portion 110 rotate, for example torsion springs.” [0054] “More particularly, the fifth and the sixth arms 160, 170 and the seventh and eighth arms 180, 190 are respectively pivoted on the third arm 140 and fourth arm 150 about axes parallel to the front direction F, whereby they may be rotated relative to the third and fourth arms 140, 150 in the sagittal plane.”. Oakley: [0073] “the headset 12 may include one or more springs or other forms of elastic elements used in combination with or instead of the flaps 40 for biasing the electrodes 30 downwardly into contact with the subject's head 98.”).
However, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley fails to disclose the connection between the upper lateral mounting members and the base member as being superior to the connection between the lower lateral mounting members and the base member.
Washbon teaches an electrode headset is formed from components including some flexibility to snugly embrace a variety of head shapes and sizes. Washbon discloses and wherein the connection between the upper lateral mounting members and the base member (Fig. 3A; [0050] “Attached to an upper region of the center band 306 is a left dorsal band 312 and a right dorsal band 314”) is superior to the connection between the lower lateral mounting members and the base member (Fig. 3A; center band 306, left temporal band 302 and a right temporal band 304).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Puttilli/Oakley to the connection between the upper lateral mounting members and the base member as being superior to the connection between the lower lateral mounting members and the base member as disclosed in Washbon as the configuration of the electrode headset allows the headset to be folded into the collapsed position, for example, when not in use, for ease of packaging, or the like (Washbon [0047, 0056]).
The combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses:
each rotatable connecting means comprising biasing means to bias the mounting member to rotate toward the patient side of the base member, wherein the mounting members are shaped and configured to retain the headset on a patient's head, in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; [0051] “According to an embodiment of the invention, the device 100 may include biasing means (not shown) associated to the axes about which the arms 120, 130, 140, 150 pivoted on the central portion 110 rotate, for example torsion springs. The biasing means are configured to urge toward one another the arms that are mutually opposite with respect to the central portion 110 so as to allow the helmet to be closed on the head of a patient and thus to facilitate the contact between the electrodes and the scalp.”),
and wherein at least one of the mounting members comprises an electrode engaging means for engaging an electrode, in use (Puttilli: [0047] “Each arm is configured to receive one or more electrodes electrically connected to a central electronic unit mounted on the helmet structure.” electrode 200, mount 210).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each mounting member comprises at least one electrode engaging means (Puttilli: [0047] “Each arm is configured to receive one or more electrodes electrically connected to a central electronic unit mounted on the helmet structure.” electrode 200, mount 210).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each lower lateral mounting member is configured to overlie at least a portion of the patient's occipital and/or temporal bones, in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; arms 170 and 190).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each upper lateral mounting member (Puttilli: arms 160 and 180) comprises three upper lateral mounting member portions (Oakley: [0069] “In many embodiments, some or all of the strips 16 may be constructed and configured to enhance the flexibility of the strips 16 and headset 12, allow the strips 16 to be compressed or conform to the shape of the subject's head 98 or a combination thereof. For example, one or more of the strips 16 may include one or more flex points 122 formed or provided therein. In the illustrated example, each flex point 122 is a break in the outer layer 16b of some of the strips 16. In other embodiments, such as shown in FIG. 6, the illustrated flex point 122 is a bend or fold in the strip 16.” See Fig. 17 above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each upper lateral mounting member is configured to overlie at least a portion of the patient's parietal and/or frontal bones in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; arms 160 and 180).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of any one of claims 1, wherein each upper lateral mounting member is configured to avoid overlying the patient's temporal bone, in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; arms 160 and 180).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of any one of claims 1, wherein neither of the upper lateral mounting members is connected to any other mounting member (Washbon: [0050] “Attached to an upper region of the center band 306 is a left dorsal band 312 and a right dorsal band 314. Each of the left and right dorsal bands 312, 314 are connected to the center band 306 with a connector allowing relative pivotal movement between each dorsal band 312, 314 and the center band 306, such that the dorsal bands 312, 314 can undergo flexion or extension relative to the center band 306.” Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein the central upper mounting member is not connected to any other mounting member (Puttilli: Fig. 1, arms 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein the central upper mounting member comprises a plurality of discrete central upper mounting member portions, wherein each central upper mounting member portion is rotatably connected to an adjacent central upper mounting member portion (Puttilli: Fig. 1, arms 120 and 130; Oakley: Fig. 17, central flaps 40, central strips 16).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 16, wherein each central upper mounting portion is biased to rotate towards a patient side of the base member (Puttilli: Fig. 5; [0051] “According to an embodiment of the invention, the device 100 may include biasing means (not shown) associated to the axes about which the arms 120, 130, 140, 150 pivoted on the central portion 110 rotate, for example torsion springs. The biasing means are configured to urge toward one another the arms that are mutually opposite with respect to the central portion 110 so as to allow the helmet to be closed on the head of a patient and thus to facilitate the contact between the electrodes and the scalp.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 16, wherein the central upper mounting member comprises two central upper mounting member portions (Puttilli: Fig. 1, arms 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 16, wherein the central upper mounting member is configured to overlie at least a portion of the patient's parietal and/or frontal bones in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5, arms 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each rotatable connecting means comprises a flexible impermeable sleeve configured to inhibit or prevent fluid ingress into the mounting member, mounting member portion and/or base member to which the rotatable connecting means is engaged (Oakley: [0065] “Referring back to FIGS. 1-3, the headset 12 and its related components may be constructed of any suitable material or combination of materials. For example, the cap 12 (e.g. electrode stations 14 and strips 16) and/or its related components or the outer layers thereof, may be constructed at least partially of one or more non-absorbent, water-resistant or water-proof materials (e.g. closed-cell foam) and/or easy-to-clean material.” [0069] “one or more of the strips 16 may include one or more flex points 122”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each rotatable connecting means allows rotation about a single axis only (Puttilli: Fig. 1; [0049] “The first and second arms 120, 130 are pivoted on the central portion 110 about respective axes parallel to the front direction F and can therefore be rotated with respect to the central portion 110 on a sagittal plane. The third and fourth arms 140, 150 are pivoted about respective axes parallel to the longitudinal direction L and can therefore be rotated with respect to the central portion 110 on a frontal plane.” [0051] “According to an embodiment of the invention, the device 100 may include biasing means (not shown) associated to the axes about which the arms 120, 130, 140, 150 pivoted on the central portion 110 rotate, for example torsion springs.” [0054] “More particularly, the fifth and the sixth arms 160, 170 and the seventh and eighth arms 180, 190 are respectively pivoted on the third arm 140 and fourth arm 150 about axes parallel to the front direction F, whereby they may be rotated relative to the third and fourth arms 140, 150 in the sagittal plane.”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each mounting member has a patient side and a non-patient side, wherein the patient side defines a substantially concave curve which substantially conforms to the surface of the patient's head, in use (Puttilli: Fig. 5; [0050] “As mentioned above, the arms 120, 130, 140, 150 of the device 100 all have an arcuate shape and define together with the central portion a helmet structure adapted to be fitted on the head of a patient. In the light of the kinematic constraints described above, it will be appreciated that such a helmet structure is adjustable depending on the size of the patient's head.”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1,
wherein each mounting member comprises at least one electrode engaging means for releasably engaging an electrode (Puttilli: [0047] “Each arm is configured to receive one or more electrodes electrically connected to a central electronic unit mounted on the helmet structure.” electrode 200; mount 210),
wherein the electrode and/or the electrode engaging means comprise a seal configured to inhibit or prevent water ingress past the electrode into an interior of the mounting member (Puttilli: [0071] “It will be appreciated that the contact element of the electrode 200 described above, and in particular the matrix 230 made of a resilient polymeric material which encloses the mount 210 and the arms 220, is outside the casing 260 thus closing the first portion 262 and separating and protecting the printed circuit board 240 arranged inside it and the related electric components.” Fig. 11), and
wherein at least one of the rotatable connecting means comprises a rotatable connecting member comprising a flexible sealing component configured to sealingly engage the mounting member and the base, to thereby prevent or inhibit water ingress into an interior of the mounting member (Oakley: [0065] Referring back to FIGS. 1-3, the headset 12 and its related components may be constructed of any suitable material or combination of materials. For example, the cap 12 (e.g. electrode stations 14 and strips 16) and/or its related components or the outer layers thereof, may be constructed at least partially of one or more non-absorbent, water-resistant or water-proof materials (e.g. closed-cell foam) and/or easy-to-clean material.” [0069] “one or more of the strips 16 may include one or more flex points 122;” [0076] “the exemplary headset 12 may include one or more base sections, or cap rims, 18 that at least partially aligns over and around a lower area of the subject's head 98;” Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 29, wherein the seal is an O-ring seal (Puttilli: Fig. 11, matrix 230).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Puttilli/Oakley/Washbon discloses the EEG headset of claim 1, wherein each upper lateral mounting member portion is rotatbly connected to an adjacent upper lateral mounting member portion by a rotatable connecting member which comprises a flexible sealing component (Oakley: [0065] “Referring back to FIGS. 1-3, the headset 12 and its related components may be constructed of any suitable material or combination of materials. For example, the cap 12 (e.g. electrode stations 14 and strips 16) and/or its related components or the outer layers thereof, may be constructed at least partially of one or more non-absorbent, water-resistant or water-proof materials (e.g. closed-cell foam) and/or easy-to-clean material.” [0069] “one or more of the strips 16 may include one or more flex points 122;” Fig. 17).
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 MOLLY HALPRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1520. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights